RULES OF EVIDENCE
RULE 128 General Provisions Factum probandum the proposition to be established;
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.
Purpose of the law on evidence:
1. Prescribes the manner of presenting evidence: as by
requiring that it shall be given in open court by one
who personally knows the thing to be true, appearing
in person, subject to cross-examination; or by
allowing it to be given by deposition, taken in such
and such a way; and the like;
2. Fixes the qualifications and the privileges of witness,
and the mode of examining them;
3. Determines as among probative matters things which
are logically and in their nature evidential, what
classes of things shall not be received.
Evidence distinguished for proof:
1. Proof is not 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 evidence.
2. Proof refers to the degree or kind of evidence which
will produce full conviction, or establish the
proposition to the satisfaction of the tribunal. More
accurately, proof is the effect or result of evidence
while evidence is the medium of proof.
Evidence distinguished from testimony:
1. Testimony is that kind of evidence which, in trial is
presented by witnesses verbally. Evidence is the
generic term and testimony that of the species.
Fact any event or act or condition of things, assumed (for the
moment) as happening or existing
Fact-in-issue a fact as to the correctness of which the
tribunal, under the law of the case, must be persuaded
Fact-in-evidence any fact considered by the tribunal as data
to persuade them to reach a reasoned belief upon a
probandum
Inference the process of thought by which the tribunal
reasons from fact to probandum
Arguments the remarks of counsel analyzing and pointing out
or repudiating the desired inference, for the assistance of the
tribunal
necessarily conceived as hypothetical
Factum probans the material evidencing the proposition;
conceived of for practical purposes as existent, and is offered
as such for the consideration of the tribunal
Kinds and degrees of evidence:
1. Direct evidence that which proves the fact in dispute
without the aid of any inference or presumption
2. Circumstantial evidence the proof of facts from
which, taken collectively, the existence of the
particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a
necessary or probable consequence
3. Primary evidence or best evidence that which
affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question
(example: the original contract)
4. Secondary evidence that which is necessarily
inferior to primary evidence and shows on its face that
better evidence exists (example: copy of the original
contract)
5. Positive evidence when a witness affirms that a fact
did or did not occur
6. Negative evidence when the witness states that he
did not see or know the occurrence of fact
7. Corroborative evidence additional evidence of a
different kind and character, tending to prove the
same point
8. Cumulative evidence evidence of the same kind and
character as that already given, and tends to prove
the same proposition
9. Prima facie evidence that which suffices for the
proof of a particular fact, until contradicted and
overcome by other evidence
10. Conclusive evidence that which is incontrovertible;
evidence that when received, the law does not allow
to be contradicted
11. Relevant evidence that which has a tendency in
reason to establish the probability or improbability of a
fact in issue; materiality has been used
interchangeably with relevancy
12. Competent evidence evidence not excluded by law
in a particular case
13. Irrelevant evidence signifies that the offered piece of
evidence has no probative value
14. Incompetent evidence signifies that an offered
witness is not qualified, under the rules of testimonial
evidence
15. Inadmissible evidence signifies that the offered
evidence is excluded by some rule of evidence, no
matter what the rule
16. Immaterial evidence signifies that the offered
evidential fact is directed to prove some probandum
which is not properly in issue
17. Rebuttal evidence that which is given to explain,
repel, counteract or disprove facts given in evidence
by the adverse party
 18. Real evidence that which is addressed to the sense
of the tribunal, as where objects are presented for the
inspection of the court
19. Expert evidence the testimony of one possessing in
regard to a particular subject or department of human
activity, knowledge not usually acquired by other
persons
What the rules of evidence determine:
1. The relevancy of facts, or what sort of facts may be
proved in order to establish the existence of the right,
or liability defined by substantive law;
2. The proof of facts, that is what sort of proof is to be
given of those facts;
3. The production of proof of relevant facts, that is who
is to give it and how it is to be given, and the effect of
improper admission or rejection of evidence.
The Rules on Electronic Evidence does not apply to
criminal actions. They apply only to civil actions, quasi-
judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings. (Ang
v. CA, G.R. No. 182835)
The rules on evidence must be liberally construed so as
not to frustrate substantial justice.
There is no law which requires that the testimony of a
single witness has to be corroborated, except where
expressly mandated in determining the value and
credibility of evidence. (People v. Pabalan, 262 SCRA
574, 685)
Section 2. Scope. 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. (Principle of uniformity)
Any evidence inadmissible according to the laws in force
at the time the action accrued, but admissible according to
laws in force at the time of the trial, is receivable.
(Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, 2 Phil. 500) But this is subject to the
constitutional limitation on the enactment of ex post facto
laws.
An ex post facto law includes that which alters the rules on
evidence and receives less or different testimony that that
required at the time of the commission of the offense in
order to convict the accused. (Mekin v. Wolfe, 2 Phil. 74)
A contract of insurance requiring the testimony of
eyewitness as the only evidence admissible concerning
the death of the insured person is valid.
The rules on evidence may be waived. When an otherwise
objectionable evidence is not objected, the evidence
becomes admissible because of waiver.
If the rule of evidence waived by the parties has been
established by law on grounds of public policy, the waiver
is void. (Obispo v. Obispo, 50 O.G. 614)
The rules on evidence, being components of the Rules of
Court, apply only to judicial proceedings.
Administrative agencies are not bound by the technical
rules of evidence. It can accept documents which cannot
be admitted in a judicial proceeding where the Rules of
Court are strictly observed. It can choose to give weight or
disregard such evidence, depending on its
trustworthiness. (Sugar Regulatory Administration v.
Tormon, G.R. No. 195640)
In the field of administrative law, while strict rules of
evidence are not applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings,
nevertheless, in adducing evidence constitutive of
substantial evidence, the basic rule that a mere allegation
is not evidence cannot be disregarded. (Marcelo v.
Bungubung, 552 SCRA 589)
The rules on evidence do not apply to election cases, land
registration, naturalization, and insolvency proceedings,
and other cases not herein provided for, except by
analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient. (Section 4, Rule 1)
The rule on formal offer of evidence (Sec. 34, Rule 132) is
not applicable to a case involving a petition for
naturalization unless applied by analogy or in a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and convenient. Thus,
the Court of Appeals may validly consider the documents
not earlier formally offered in the trial court, and raised for
the first time on appeal. (Ong Chia v. Republic, 328 SCRA
749) (NOTE: Sec. 34, Rule 132 provides that courts, as a
rule, are not authorized to consider evidence which has
not been formally offered.)
The NLRC may consider evidence, such as documents
and affidavits, submitted by the parties for the first time on
appeal. Technical rules of evidence are not binding in
labor cases. (Sasan, Sr. v. NLRC, 569 SCRA 670)
The parol evidence rule, like other rules of evidence,
should not be strictly applied in labor cases. Hence, a
Labor Arbiter is not precluded from accepting and
evaluating evidence other than, and even contrary to, what
is stated in the CBA. (Cirtek Employees Labor Union
FFW v. Cirtek Electronic, 650 SCRA 656)
In the Philippine judicial system, there is a mandatory
judicial notice of the official acts of the legislature and
these acts cover statutes. Evidence is not required on
matters of judicial notice and on matters judicially
admitted.
Evidence is required only when the court has to resolve a
question of fact. Where no factual issue exists in a case,
there is no need to present evidence because where the
case presents a question of law, such question is resolved
by the mere application of the relevant statutes or rules of
this jurisdiction to which no evidence is required.
Evidence in civil cases distinguished from evidence in criminal
cases:
1. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof
must prove his claim by a preponderance of evidence;
while in criminal cases, the guilt of the accused has to
be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 2. In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror. In criminal cases, except
those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by
law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by
the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
3. In civil cases, the concept of presumption of
innocence does not apply and generally there is no
presumption for or against a party except in certain
cases provided for by law. In criminal cases, the
accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of
innocence.
Section 3. Admissibility of evidence.
Evidence is admissible when it:
1. is relevant to the issue; and
2. is not excluded by the law or these rules.
The two axioms of admissibility:
1. None but facts having rational probative value are
admissible;
2. All facts having rational probative value are
admissible, unless some specific rule forbids.
To admit evidence and not to believe it are not
incompatible with each other. (Calamba Steel Center v.
CIR, 457 SCRA 482)
The admissibility of evidence should not be equated with
the weight of the evidence. The admissibility of the
evidence depends on its relevance and competence while
the weight of evidence pertains to its tendency to convince
and persuade. A particular item of evidence may be
admissible but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial
evaluation with the guidelines provided by the rules of
evidence. (Tating v. Marcella, 519 SCRA 79)
Conditional admissibility when the relevance of a piece of
evidence is not apparent at the time it is offered, but the
relevance of which will readily be seen when connected to
other pieces of evidence not yet offered
Curative admissibility allows a party to introduce otherwise
inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing partys previous
introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any
unfair prejudice caused by the admission of the earlier
inadmissible evidence
In our jurisdiction, the principle of curative admissibility
should not be made to apply where the evidence was
admitted without objection because the failure to object
constitutes waiver of the inadmissibility of the evidence. In
our jurisdiction, inadmissible evidence not objected to
becomes admissible.
It is submitted that it is only where the objection was
incorrectly overruled that the court should allow the other
party to introduce evidence to contradict the evidence
improperly admitted in order to cure the prejudice caused
to the other party against whom the offered evidence was
erroneously admitted. Common reason suggests that
where there is a waiver, there is no defect to cure.
In connection with evidence which may appear to be of
doubtful relevancy or incompetency or admissibility, it is
the safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them on
doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them unless
plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, for the
reason that their rejection places them beyond the
consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found
relevant or competent; on the other hand, their admission,
if they turn out later to be irrelevant or incompetent, can
easily be remedied by completely discarding them or
ignoring them. (Banaria v. Banaria)
It is considered unlawful to (a) secretly overhear, (b)
intercept, or (c) record private communication or spoken
word when doing so is without the authority of all the
parties to such private communication. If only one party
authorizes the recording and the other does not, there is a
violation of the law. (R.A. No. 4200, Anti-Wiretapping Law)
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.
There is no precise and universal test of relevancy
provided by law. However, the determination of whether
particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the
discretion of the court, which must be exercised according
to the teachings of logic and everyday experience. (People
v. Galleno, 291 SCRA 761)
A matter is collateral when it is on a parallel or diverging
line, merely additional or auxiliary. (Blacks Law
Dictionary) Example: Motive or reputation
Evidence on the credibility of witness, or the lack of it, is
always relevant. (Illustration: Evidence of a persons bad
general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is
objectionable if offered to prove that he committed the
crime charged, but it may be admissible to impeach the
credibility of witness under the authority of Sec. 11, Rule
132.)
Competent evidence one that is not excluded by law or rules
in a particular case
Warrantless search is justified only if it was incidental to a
lawful arrest.
 RULE 129 What Need Not Be Proved
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory.
A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of:
1. the existence and territorial extent of
states, their political history, forms of
government and symbols of nationality,
2. the law of nations,
3. the admiralty and maritime courts of the
world and their seals,
4. the political constitution and history of
the Philippines,
5. the official acts of legislative, executive
and judicial departments of the
Philippines,
6. the laws of nature,
7. the measure of time, and
8. the geographical divisions. (1a)
A document, or any article for that matter, is not evidence
when it is simply marked for identification; it must be
formally offered, and the opposing counsel given an
opportunity to object to it or to cross-examine the witness
called upon to prove or identify it. (Candido v. CA, 253
SCRA 78)
Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary.
A court may take judicial notice of matters
which:
1. are of public knowledge, or those facts that
are so commonly known in the community as to make
it unprofitable to require proof, and so certainly known
to as make it indisputable among reasonable men
2. are capable to unquestionable
demonstration, or
3. ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions. (BAR)
Requisites for discretionary judicial notice:
1. The matter must be one of common knowledge;
2. The matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubt
(if there is any uncertainty about the matter, then
evidence must be adduced); and
3. The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of the
court.
A court cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in
part, is dependent on the existence or non-existence of a
fact of which the court has no constructive knowledge.
(Expertravel and Tours v. CA, 459 SCRA 147)
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. (n)
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, as the basis of his action. (State
Prosecutors v. Muro, 236 SCRA 505) BAR
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot
take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other facts,
they must be alleged and proved. (Garcia v. Garcia-Recio,
366 SCRA 437) BAR
In the absence of proof, the foreign law will be presumed
to be the same as the laws of the jurisdiction hearing the
case. (Doctrine of processual presumption)
Instances when a court can take judicial notice of a foreign law:
1. When there is a statute directing the court to take
judicial notice of a certain foreign law;
2. Where the foreign law is within the actual knowledge
of the court, such as when the law generally well-
known, had been ruled upon in previous cases before
it and none of the parties claim otherwise;
3. Where the foreign is part of a published treatise,
periodical or pamphlet and the writer is recognized in
his profession or calling as expert in the subject. BAR
Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) should take judicial notice of
municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in which
they sit. (U.S. v. Blanco, 37 Phil. 126)
A Regional Trial Court (RTC) should take judicial notice of
municipal ordinances in force in the municipalities within
their jurisdiction but only when so required by law. For
example, the charter of the City of Manila requires all
courts sitting therein to take judicial notice of all
ordinances passed by the city council. (City of Manila v.
Garcia, 19 SCRA 413)
The RTC must take judicial notice also of municipal
ordinances in cases on appeal to it from the inferior court
in which the latter took judicial notice of. (U.S. v.
Hernandez, 31 Phil. 342)
The Court of Appeals may take judicial notice of municipal
ordinances because nothing in the Rules prohibits it from
taking cognizance of an ordinance which is capable of
unquestionable demonstration. (Gallego v. People, 8
SCRA 813)
GENERAL RULE: While courts may take judicial notice of
its own acts and records in the same case, as a rule,
 courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the
contents of the records of other cases, even when such
cases have been tried or are pending in the same court,
and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have
been heard or are actually pending before the same judge.
(Tabuena v. CA, 196 SCRA 650)
EXCEPTIONS:
o When in the absence of any objection, and with
the knowledge of the opposing party, the
contents of said other case are clearly referred to
by title and number in a pending action and
adopted or read into the record of the latter; or
o When the original record of the other case or any
part of it is actually withdrawn from the archives
at the courts discretion upon the request, or with
consent, of the parties, and admitted as part of
the record of the pending case.
Courts cannot take judicial notice of proprietary acts of
GOCCs. (Asian Terminals v. Malayan Insurance, 647
SCRA 111)
A court cannot take judicial notice of an administrative
regulation or of a statute that is not yet effective. (State
Prosecutors v. Muro, supra)
considered judicial admissions. (Programme Inc. v.
Province of Bataan, 492 SCRA 529)
When a pleading is amended, the amended pleading
supersedes the pleading that it amended and the
admissions in the superseded pleading may be received in
evidence against the pleader. (Sec. 8, Rule 10) BAR
The admissions in the superseded pleading are to be
considered as extrajudicial admissions which must be
proven. (Torres v. CA, 131 SCRA 24)
Admissions made in pleadings that have been dismissed
are merely extrajudicial admissions. (Servicewide
Specialists v. CA, 257 SCRA 643)
Admissions by a counsel are generally conclusive upon a
client. (De Garcia v. CA, 37 SCRA 129)
Despite the presence of judicial admissions, the trial court
is still given leeway to consider other evidences presented
because said admissions may not necessarily prevail over
documentary evidence. (Asean Pacific Planners v. City of
Urdaneta, 566 SCRA 219)

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. (BAR)

Where judicial admission are made:

1. In the pleadings;
2. During the trial, either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations;
3. In other stages of the judicial proceeding.

An admission made in a document drafted for purposes of

filing a pleading but never filed is not a judicial admission.
If signed by the party, it is deemed an extrajudicial
admission. If signed by the attorney, it is not even an
admission by the party. (Jackson v. Schine Lexington
Corp.) BAR

A stipulation of facts entered into by the prosecution and

defense counsel during trial in open court is automatically
reduced in writing and contained in the official transcript of
proceedings had in court. the conformity of the accused in
the form of his signature affixed thereto is unnecessary in
view of the facts that an attorney who is employed to
manage a partys conduct of lawsuit has prima facie
authority to make relevant admissions by pleading, by oral
or written stipulation which, unless allowed to be
withdrawn are conclusive. (People v. Hernandez, 206
SCRA 25)

Admissions obtained through depositions, written

interrogatories or requests for admission are also
 RULE 130 Rules of Admissibility
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
Section 1. Object as evidence. Objects as
evidence are those addressed to the senses of
the court. When an object is relevant to the fact
in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or
viewed by the court. (1a)
Where the physical evidence runs counter to the
testimonial evidence, the physical evidence should prevail.
(BPI v. Reyes, 544 SCRA 206)
View going out of the courtroom to observe places and
objects
Basic requisites for the admissibility of an object or real
evidence:
1. The evidence must be relevant;
2. The evidence must be authenticated; (it can be
determined here whether the evidence is competent
or not)
3. The authentication must be made by a competent
witness; and
4. The object must be formally offered in evidence.
The right against self-incrimination finds no application in a
case where object or real evidence is offered as evidence
because no testimonial compulsion was involved. (People
v. Malimit, 264 SCRA 167) BAR
Categories of object evidence:
1. Object that are readily identifiable (unique objects);
2. Objects that are made readily identifiable (objects
made unique);
3. Objects with no identifying marks and cannot be
marked (non-unique objects).
The prosecution is not required to elicit testimony from
every custodian or every person who had an opportunity
to come in contact with the evidence sought to be
admitted. As long as one of the chains testifies and his
testimony negates the possibility of tampering and that the
integrity of the evidence is preserved, his testimony alone
is adequate to prove chain of custody.
Chain of custody rule a method of authenticating evidence
which requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
question is what the proponent claims it to be
Chain of custody (as used in Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act, R.A. No. 9165) the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation
to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court of destruction
Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment:
The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition
in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon
confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA
Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative
examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory
examination results, which shall be done under oath
by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued
within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the
subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
and controlled precursors and essential chemicals
does not allow the completion of testing within the
time frame, a partial laboratory examination report
shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by
the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a
final certification shall be issued on the completed
forensic laboratory examination on the same within
the next twenty-four (24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall,
within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular
inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, including the
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-
four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction
or burning of the same, in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the
DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public
official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the
manner of proper disposition and destruction of such
item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided,
 That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined
by the Board, shall be donated, used or recycled for
legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a
representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is
retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as
to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject
item/s which, together with the representative
sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be
submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the
case. In all instances, the representative sample/s
shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by
the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or
counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of
the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not
constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said
offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a
representative after due notice in writing to the
accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72)
hours before the actual burning or destruction of the
evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall
appoint a member of the public attorney's office to
represent the former
Non-compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 shall not render
void and invalid seizures of and custody over objects
provided that (1) the non-compliance must be because of
justifiable grounds, and (2) the apprehending officer/team
must have properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items.
A mere statement that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the evidence is not enough. It must be accompanied by
proof. (People v. Dela Cruz, 570 SCRA 273)
Elements necessary for a prosecution for sale of dangerous
drugs under R.A. No. 9165:
1. The identity of the buyer and the seller, the object,
and the consideration; and
2. The delivery of the thing sold and the payment.
Guidelines to be used by courts in assessing the probative
value of DNA evidence:
1. How the samples were collected;
2. How they were handled;
3. The possibility of contamination of the samples;
4. The procedure followed in analyzing the samples;
5. Whether the proper standards and procedure were
followed in conducting the tests; and
6. The qualification of the analyst who conducted the
test. BAR
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE
SECTION 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply whenever DNA
evidence, as defined in Section 3 hereof, is offered, used, or
proposed to be offered or used as evidence in all criminal and
civil actions as well as special proceedings.
Sec. 2. Application of other Rules on Evidence. In all
matters not specifically covered by this Rule, the Rules of
Court and other pertinent provisions of law on evidence shall
apply.
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. For purposes of this Rule, the
following terms shall be defined as follows:
a. Biological sample means any organic material
originating from a persons body, even if found in
inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing.
This includes blood, saliva and other body fluids,
tissues, hairs and bones;
b. DNA means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the
chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of
the body. The totality of an individuals DNA is unique
for the individual, except identical twins;
c. DNA evidence constitutes the totality of the DNA
profiles, results and other genetic information directly
generated from DNA testing of biological samples;
d. DNA profile means genetic information derived from
DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a
person, which biological sample is clearly identifiable
as originating from that person;
e. DNA testing means verified and credible scientific
methods which include the extraction of DNA from
biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles
and the comparison of the information obtained from
the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose
of determining, with reasonable certainty, whether or
not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct
biological samples originates from the same person
(direct identification) or if the biological samples
originate from related persons (kinship analysis); and
f. Probability of Parentage means the numerical
estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a putative
parent compared with the probability of a random
match of two unrelated individuals in a given
population.
Sec. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. The
appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on
application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter
in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after
due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the
following:
a. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
b. The biological sample: (i) was not previously
subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested;
or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but
the results may require confirmation for good reasons;
c. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
d. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to
produce new information that is relevant to the proper
resolution of the case; and
e. The existence of other factors, if any, which the court
may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy of
integrity of the DNA testing.
This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a
prior court order, at the behest of any party, including law
enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is
commenced.
Sec. 5. DNA Testing Order. If the court finds that the
requirements in Section 4 hereof have been complied with, the
court shall
a. Order, where appropriate, that biological samples be
taken from any person or crime scene evidence;
b. Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing
designed to protect the integrity of the biological
sample, the testing process and the reliability of the
test results, including the condition that the DNA test
results shall be simultaneously disclosed to parties
involved in the case; and
c. If the biological sample taken is of such an amount
that prevents the conduct of confirmatory testing by
the other or the adverse party and where additional
biological samples of the same kind can no longer be
obtained, issue an order requiring all parties to the
case or proceedings to witness the DNA testing to be
conducted.
An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately
executory and shall not be appealable. Any petition for
certiorari initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the
implementation thereof, unless a higher court issues an
injunctive order. The grant of DNA testing application shall not
be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any
component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a
result thereof.
Sec. 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing. Post-conviction DNA
testing may be available, without need of prior court order, to
the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory
judgment provided that (a) a biological sample exists, (b) such
sample is relevant to the case, and (c) the testing would
probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment
of conviction.
Sec. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence.
In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence
presented, the court shall consider the following:
a. The chair of custody, including how the biological
samples were collected, how they were handled, and
the possibility of contamination of the samples;
b. The DNA testing methodology, including the
procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and
compliance with the scientifically valid standards in
conducting the tests;
c. The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation
by any reputable standards-setting institution and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If
the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant
experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and
credibility shall be properly established; and
d. The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter
provided.
The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the
appreciation of evidence shall apply suppletorily.
Sec. 8. Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology. In
evaluating whether the DNA testing methodology is reliable,
the court shall consider the following:
a. The falsifiability of the principles or methods used,
that is, whether the theory or technique can be and
has been tested;
b. The subjection to peer review and publication of the
principles or methods;
c. The general acceptance of the principles or methods
by the relevant scientific community;
d. The existence and maintenance of standards and
controls to ensure the correctness of data generated;
e. The existence of an appropriate reference population
database; and
f. The general degree of confidence attributed to
mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA
profiles and the significance and limitation of
statistical calculations used in comparing DNA
profiles.
Sec. 9. of DNA Testing Results. In evaluating the results of
DNA testing, the court shall consider the following:
a. The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA
evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA
evidence;
b. The results of the DNA testing in the light of the
totality of the other evidence presented in the case;
and that
c. DNA results that exclude the putative parent from
paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If
the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than
99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be
considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of
the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher there
shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.
Sec. 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing Remedy if the
Results Are Favorable to the Convict. The convict or the
prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
the court of origin if the results of the post-conviction DNA
testing are favorable to the convict. In the case the court, after
due hearing finds the petition to be meritorious, if shall reverse
or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of
the convict, unless continued detention is justified for a lawful
cause.
A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or
the Supreme Court, or with any member of said courts, which
may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the
court of origin and issue the appropriate orders.
Sec. 11. Confidentiality. DNA profiles and all results or
other information obtained from DNA testing shall be
confidential. Except upon order of the court, a DNA profile and
all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall
only be released to any of the following, under such terms and
conditions as may be set forth by the court:
a. Person from whom the sample was taken;
b. Person from whom the sample was taken;
c. Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action;
d. Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and
e. Other persons as determined by the court.
Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any
information concerning a DNA profile without the proper court
order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court wherein
such DNA evidence was offered, presented or sought to be
offered and presented.
Where the person from whom the biological sample was taken
files a written verified request to the court that allowed the DNA
testing for the disclosure of the DNA profile of the person and
all results or other information obtained from the DNA testing,
he same may be disclosed to the persons named in the written
verified request.
Sec. 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence. The trial court shall
preserve the DNA evidence in its totality, including all biological
samples, DNA profiles and results or other genetic information
obtained from DNA testing. For this purpose, the court may
order the appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA
evidence as follows:
a. In criminal cases:
i. for not less than the period of time
that any person is under trial for an
offense; or
ii. in case the accused is serving
sentence, until such time as the
accused has served his sentence;
a. In all other cases, until such time as the decision in
the case where the DNA evidence was introduced
has become final and executory.
The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological
sample before the expiration of the periods set forth above,
provided that:
a. A court order to that effect has been secured; or
b. The person from whom the DNA sample was
obtained has consented in writing to the disposal of
the DNA evidence.
Sec. 13. Applicability to Pending Cases. Except as provided
in Section 6 and 10 hereof, this Rule shall apply to cases
pending at the time of its effectivity.
---- 0 ----
A paraffin test is merely corroborative evidence, neither
proving nor disproving that a person did indeed fire a gun.
The positive or negative results of the test can be
influenced by certain factors, such as the wearing of
gloves by the subject, perspiration of the hands, wind
direction, wind velocity, humidity, climate conditions, the
length of the barrel of the firearm, or the open or closed
trigger guard of the firearm. (People v. Buduhan, 561
SCRA 337)
Courts uniformly reject the results of polygraph tests when
offered in evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt
or innocence of one accused of a crime because it has not
yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and
accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. (U.S. v.
Tedder)
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2. Documentary evidence.
Documents as evidence consist of writing or
any material containing letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of
written expression offered as proof of their
contents. (n)
A private document may be offered and admitted in
evidence both as documentary evidence and as object
evidence depending on the purpose for which the
document is offered. If offered to prove its existence,
condition or for any purpose other than the contents of a
document, the same is considered as an object evidence.
When the private document is offered as proof of its
contents, the same is considered as documentary
evidence. (Principle of multiple admissibility)
Requisites for the admissibility of the documentary evidence:
1. The document must be relevant;
2. The evidence must be authenticated;
3. The document must be authenticated by a competent
witness; and
4. The document must be formally offered in evidence.
1. Best Evidence Rule
The basic premise justifying the rule is the need to present
to the court the exact words of a writing where a slight
variation of words may mean a great difference in rights.
An ancillary justification for the rule is the prevention and
detection if fraud. The rule is also justified by the need to
avoid unintentional or intentional mistaken transmissions
of the contents of a document through the introduction of
selected potions of a writing to which the adverse party
has no full access.
The underlying purpose of the best evidence rule is the
prevention of fraud or mistake in the proof of the contents
of a writing.
The best evidence rule applies only in documentary
evidence.
Section 3. Original document must be
produced; exceptions.
GENERAL RULE: When the subject of inquiry is
the contents of a document, no evidence shall
be admissible other than the original document
itself.
There is no reason to apply the best evidence rule when
the issue does not involve the contents of a writing.
The best evidence rule applies only where the content of
the document is the subject of the inquiry. (Arceo v.
People, 495 SCRA 204)
EXCEPTIONS:
(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 control of the party against
whom the evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable
notice;
(c) When the original consists of
numerous accounts or other documents
which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact
sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record
in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office.
The best evidence rule may be waived if not raised in the
trial. (Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial
Co., [ED Pa] 505 F Supp 1190)
Section 4. Original of document.
(a) The original of the document is one
the contents of which are the subject of
inquiry.
(b) When a document is in two or more
copies executed at or about the same
time, with identical contents, all such
copies are equally regarded as originals.
BAR
(c) When an entry is repeated in the
regular course of business, one being
copied from another at or near the time
of the transaction, all the entries are
likewise equally regarded as originals.
2. Secondary Evidence
Section 5. When original document is
unavailable. When the original document has
been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution
or existence and the cause of its unavailability
without bad faith on his part, may prove its
contents by a copy, or by a recital of its
contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (4a)
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence in case
of loss, destruction or unavailability of the original:
1. The offeror must prove the execution and existence of
the original document;
2. The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability;
and
3. The offeror must show that the unavailability was not
due to his bad faith.
The hierarchy of preferred secondary evidence must be
strictly followed. (Applies also to Sec. 6)
Section 6. When original document is in
adverse party's custody or control. If the
document is in the custody or under the control
of adverse party, he must have reasonable
notice to produce it. If after such notice and
after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails
to produce the document, secondary evidence
may be presented as in the case of its loss. (5a)
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when the
original is in the custody or control of the adverse party:
1. Satisfactory proof of the existence of the original;
2. Reasonable notice to produce it was given to the
adverse party;
3. The adverse party failed to produce the original
document despite reasonable notice.
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original
document is a public record. When the
original of document is in the custody of public
officer or is recorded in a public office, its
contents may be proved by a certified copy
issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
Section 8. Party who calls for document not
bound to offer it. A party who calls for the
production of a document and inspects the
same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. (6a)
3. Parol Evidence Rule
In general, the parol evidence rule is designed to give
certainty to written transactions, preserve the reliability
and protect the sanctity of written agreements.
Under the parol evidence rule, no evidence of the terms of
a writing are admissible other than the contents of the
written agreement.
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements.
GENERAL RULE: When the terms of an
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed
upon and there can be, between the parties and
their successors in interest, no evidence of
such terms other than the contents of the
written agreement.
Requirements for the application of the rule:
1. There must be a written agreement; and
2. The writing must embody an agreement.
EXCEPTIONS: However, a party may present
evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms
of written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement
to express the true intent and agreement
of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement;
or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed
to by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the written
agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)
The term parol evidence means something oral or verbal
but with reference to contracts it means extraneous
evidence or evidence aliunde.
A total stranger to the writing is not bound by its terms and
is allowed to introduce extrinsic or parol evidence against
the efficacy of the writing. (Lechugas v. CA, 22 Phil. 310)
Distinctions between the best evidence rule and the parol
evidence rule:
1. The best evidence rule establishes a preference for
the original document over a secondary evidence
thereof. The parol evidence rule is not concerned with
the primacy of evidence but presupposes that the
original is available.
2. The best evidence rule precludes the admission of
secondary evidence if the original document is
available. The parol evidence rule precludes the
admission of other evidence to prove the term of a
document other than the contents of the document
itself for the purpose of varying the terms of the
writing.
3. The best evidence rule can be invoked by any litigant
to an action whether or not said litigant is a party to
the document involved. The parol evidence rule can
be invoked only by the parties to the document and
their successors-in-interest.
4. The best evidence rule applies to all forms of writing.
The parol evidence rule applies to written agreements
and wills.
The parol evidence rule can be waived by failure to invoke
the benefits of the rule. This waiver may be made by
failure to object to the introduction of evidence aliunde.
Inadmissible evidence may be rendered admissible by
failure to object. (Santiago v. CA, 278 SCRA 98)
4. Interpretation Of Documents
Section 10. Interpretation of a writing according
to its legal meaning. The language of a
writing is to be interpreted according to the
legal meaning it bears in the place of its
execution, unless the parties intended
otherwise. (8)
Section 11. Instrument construed so as to give
effect to all provisions. In the construction of
an instrument, where there are several
provisions or particulars, such a construction
is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect
to all. (9)
Section 12. Interpretation according to
intention; general and particular provisions.
In the construction of an instrument, the
intention of the parties is to be pursued; and
when a general and a particular provision are
inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the
former. So a particular intent will control a
general one that is inconsistent with it. (10)
Section 13. Interpretation according to
circumstances. For the proper construction
of an instrument, the circumstances under
which it was made, including the situation of
the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may
be shown, so that the judge may be placed in
the position of those who language he is to
interpret. (11)
Section 14. Peculiar signification of terms.
The terms of a writing are presumed to have
been used in their primary and general
acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show
that they have a local, technical, or otherwise
peculiar signification, and were so used and
understood in the particular instance, in which
case the agreement must be construed
accordingly. (12)
Section 15. Written words control printed.
When an instrument consists partly of written
words and partly of a printed form, and the two
are inconsistent, the former controls the latter.
Section 16. Experts and interpreters to be used
in explaining certain writings. When the
characters in which an instrument is written are
difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not
understood by the court, the evidence of
persons skilled in deciphering the characters,
or who understand the language, is admissible
to declare the characters or the meaning of the
language. (14)
Section 17. Of Two constructions, which
preferred. When the terms of an agreement
have been intended in a different sense by the
different parties to it, that sense is to prevail
against either party in which he supposed the
other understood it, and when different
constructions of a provision are otherwise
equally proper, that is to be taken which is the
most favorable to the party in whose favor the
provision was made. (15)
Section 18. Construction in favor of natural
right. When an instrument is equally
susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor
of natural right and the other against it, the
former is to be adopted. (16)
Section 19. Interpretation according to usage.
An instrument may be construed according
to usage, in order to determine its true
character. (17)
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Testimonial or oral evidence evidence elicited from the
mouth of a witness as distinguished from real and
documentary evidence
Witness the person who gives the testimony
Competence of a witness refers to the witness personal
qualification to testify, as distinguished from competence of
evidence which means the inclusion or exclusion by the law or
rules of such evidence
As a general rule, a person who takes the stand as
witness is presumed to be qualified to testify. A party who
desires to question the competence of a witness must do
so by making an objection as soon as the facts tending to
show incompetence are apparent. (Jones on Evidence)
1. Qualification of Witnesses
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications.
Except as provided in the next succeeding
section, all persons who can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known their perception to
others, may be witnesses.
Additional qualifications:
1. He must take either an oath or an affirmation (Sec. 1,
Rule 132);
2. He must not possess any of the disqualifications
imposed by law or the rules.
Factors involved in the ability of the witness to make known his
perception to others:
1. Ability to remember what has been perceived;
2. Ability to communicate the remembered perception.
When deaf-mutes are competent:
1. When they can understand and appreciate the
sanctity of an oath;
2. Comprehend facts they are going to testify to; and
3. Communicate their ideas through a qualified
interpreter.
Religious or political belief, interest in the
outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be
ground for disqualification. (18a)
The relationship of a witness does not ipso facto render
him a biased witness in criminal cases where the quantum
of evidence is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is no
reason why the same principle should not apply to a civil
case where the quantum of evidence is only
preponderance of evidence. (Northwest Airlines v. Chiong,
543 SCRA 308)
 Those who have been convicted of falsification of a
document, perjury or false testimony are disqualified from
being witnesses to a will. (Art. 821[2], Civil Code) BAR
Distinctions between competency of a witness and credibility of
a witness;
1. Competency of the witness is a matter of law or rule,
while credibility of a witness has nothing to do with the
law or rules;
2. Competency of a witness refers to the basic
qualifications of a witness as his capacity to perceive
and communicate his perception to others, while
credibility of a witness refers to the believability of a
witness and has nothing to do with the law or the
rules.
Drug abuse will not render a person incompetent to testify.
Drug abuse becomes relevant only if the witness was
under the influence of drugs at the time he is testifying or
the time the events in question were observed. (U.S. v.
Novo Sampol)
Question concerning the credibility of a witness are best
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court as it is
in the best position to observe his demeanor and bodily
movement. (Llanto v. Alzona, 450 SCRA 288)
Appellate courts do not disturb the findings of the trial
courts with regards to the credibility of a witness. The
reason for this is that trial courts have the unique
opportunity to observe the witness first hand and note their
demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling
examination. (People v. Cabatlan, 666 SCRA 174) This is
especially true when the trial courts findings have been
affirmed by the appellate court.
The only time when a reviewing court is not bound by the
trial courts assessment of credibility arises upon a
showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence
that was overlooked and, if considered, could affect the
outcome of the case. (People v. Valdez, 663 SCRA 272)
In a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted
solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is
credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature
and the normal course of things. (People v. Viojela, G.R.
No. 177140)
Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and
credit, for youth and immaturity are badges of truth.
Full weight and credit is given to the testimony of a child-
complainant, for no woman, much less one of tender age,
would broadcast a violation of her person, allow an
examination of her flesh and endure a public trial of her
remaining dignity, unless she is solely impelled by the
desire for redress.
It is not enough to say that a girl would not expose herself
to the humiliation of a rape complaint unless the charge is
true. That is putting things too simply. For the prosecution
to succeed, it is also necessary to find that the
complainants story is by itself believable independently of
the presumption. Otherwise, if all that mattered was that
presumption, every accusation of rape would inevitably
result, without need of further evidence, in the conviction
of the accused. This would militate against the rule that in
every criminal prosecution, including rape cases, the
accused shall be presume innocent until the contrary is
proved. (People v. Sandagon, 233 SCRA 108)
In determining the value and credibility of evidence,
witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. The
testimony of only one witness, if credible and positive, is
sufficient to convict. (Bastian v. CA, 552 SCRA 43) BAR
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus false in one thing, false in
everything; if the testimony of a witness on a material issue is
wilfully false and given with an intention to deceive, the jury
may disregard all the witness testimony
The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not
mandatory but merely sanctions disregard of the testimony
of a witness if the circumstances so warrant. To
completely disregard all the testimony of a witness on this
ground, his testimony must have been false as to a
material point, and the witness must have conscious and
deliberate intention to falsify a material point. (People v.
Pacapac, 248 SCRA 77)
Delayed reporting by witnesses of what they know about a
crime does not render their testimonies false or incredible,
for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of
most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a
criminal case. (People v. Manalad, 387 SCRA 263)
Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental
incapacity or immaturity. The following
persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the
time of their production for examination,
is such that they are incapable of
intelligently making known their
perception to others;
This establishes the rule that the mental incapacity of a
witness at the time of his perception of the events subject
of the testimony does not affect his competency as long as
he is competent at the time he is produce for examination
to make know his perception to others.
(b) Children whose mental maturity is
such as to render them incapable of
perceiving the facts respecting which
they are examined and of relating them
truthfully.
Child witness any person who, at the time giving testimony,
is below the age of eighteen (18) years
Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. (Sec.6,
A.M. 004-07-SC)
Person allowed to attend the competency examination of a
child:
 1. The judge and necessary court personnel;
2. The counsel for the parties;
3. The guardian ad litem;
4. One or more support persons for the child; and
5. The defendant, unless the court determines that
competence can be fully evaluated in his absence.
When the trial court may order that the testimony of a child be
taken by live-link television:
If there is a substantial likelihood that the child would
suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of the
accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may
be; the trauma must be of a kind which would impair the
completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child.
Section 22. Disqualification by reason of
marriage.
GENERAL RULE: During their marriage, neither
the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the
affected spouse.
Exceptions: In a civil case by one against the
other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the
latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (The
benefit of this rule may be waived and it may be done so
impliedly or expressly.)
Reasons for this rule:
1. There is identity of interests between husband and
wife;
2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there is a
consequent danger of perjury;
3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and
confides of private life, even at the risk of an
occasional failure of justice, and to prevent domestic
disunion and unhappiness; and
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquillity, there is
danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile
testimony of the other.
The prohibition extends not only to a testimony adverse to
the spouse but also to a testimony in favor of the spouse.
The prohibition can no longer be invoked after the
marriage is dissolved.
The testimony covered by the marital disqualification rule
not only consists of utterances but also the production of
documents. (State v. Bramlet)
A spouse may testify in a trial where the other spouse is a
co-accused but the testimony of witness spouse in
reference to the accused spouse must be disregarded if
the latter timey objected thereto under the marital
disqualification rule. (People v. Quidato, 297 SCRA 1)
An estranged spouse may testify against the other spouse
because the reason behind the marital disqualification rule
is already non-existent.
Where the marital and domestic relations between
spouses have become so strained that there is no more
harmony, peace or tranquillity to be preserved, there is no
longer any reason to apply the marital disqualification rule.
(People v. Castaneda, 271 SCRA 504; Alvarez v.
Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72)
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death
or insanity of adverse party. Parties or
assignor of parties to a case, or persons in
whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an
executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or against
a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased
person or against such person of unsound
mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of
unsound mind. Dead mans statute (The rule applies only
to a civil case or a special proceeding over the estate of a
deceased or insane person.)
Elements:
1. The defendant in the case is the executor or the
administrator or a representative of the deceased or
the person of unsound mind;
2. The suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the
estate of said deceased or person of unsound mind;
3. The witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of that
party, or a person in whose behalf the case is
prosecuted; and
4. The subject of the testimony is as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased person
or before such person became of unsound mind.
The rule contemplates a suit against the estate, its
administrator or executor and not a suit filed by the
administrator or executor of the estate. A defendant, who
opposes the suit filed by the administrator to recover
alleged shares of stock belonging to the deceased, is not
barred from testifying as to his transaction with the
deceased with respect to the shares. (Razon v. IAC, 207
SCRA 234)
When a counterclaim is set up by the administrator of the
estate, the case is removed from the operation of the
dead mans statute. The plaintiff may testify to
occurrences before the death of the deceased to defeat
the counterclaim which is not brought against the
representative of the estate but by the said representative.
(Sunga-Chan v. Chua, 363 SCRA 249)
The dead mans statute does not operate to close the
mouth of a witness as to any matter of fact coming to his
knowledge in any other way than through personal
dealings with the deceased person, or communication
 made by the deceased to the witness. (Bordalba v. CA,
374 SCRA 555)
The protection under the dead mans statute may be waived
by:
1. Failing to object to the testimony;
2. Cross-examining the witness on the prohibited
testimony; or
3. Offering evidence to rebut the prohibited testimony.
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of
privileged communication. The following
persons cannot testify as to matters learned in
confidence in the following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or
after the marriage, cannot be examined
without the consent of the other as to
any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during
the marriage except in a civil case by
one against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants;
Elements:
1. There must be a valid marriage between the husband
and wife;
2. There is a communication received in confidence by
one from the other; and
3. The confidential communication was received during
the marriage.
Distinctions between marital disqualification rule (MDR) and
marital privileged communication rule (MPCR):
1. MDR includes facts, occurrences or information even
prior to the marriage, while MPDR applies only to
confidential information received during the marriage;
2. MDR can no longer be invoked once the marriage is
dissolved, while MPCR may be invoked even after the
dissolution of marriage;
3. MDR requires that the spouse against whom the
testimony is offered is a party to the action, while
MPCR applies whether the spouses are parties or
not;
4. In MDR, the prohibition is a testimony for or against
the other, while in MPCR, what is prohibited is the
examination of a spouse as to matters received in
confidence by one from the other during the marriage.
The prerogative to object to a confidential communication
between the spouses is vested upon the spouse
themselves, particularly the communicating spouse, not a
third person.
(b) An attorney cannot, without the
consent of his client, be examined as to
any communication made by the client to
him, or his advice given thereon in the
course of, or with a view to, professional
employment, nor can an attorney's
secretary, stenographer, or clerk be
examined, without the consent of the
client and his employer, concerning any
fact the knowledge of which has been
acquired in such capacity; (This privilege
belong to the client; it is personal to him.)
Requisites:
1. There must be a communication made by the client to
the attorney, or an advice given by the attorney to his
client;
2. The communication or advice must be given in
confidence; and
3. The communication or advice must be given either in
the course of the professional employment or with a
view to professional employment.
Where a person consults an attorney, not as lawyer, but
merely as a friend, or a participant in a business
transaction, the consultation would not be one made in the
course of a professional employment or with a view to
professional employment as required by Sec. 24(b), and if
so proven to be so, would not be within the ambit of the
privilege. (U.S. v. Tedder)
Forms of the communication:
1. Oral;
2. Written;
3. Physical demonstration;
4. Transmitted by facsimile, cellular telephone, or other
electronic means.
The privilege does not extend to communications where
the clients purpose is the furtherance of a future intended
crime or fraud, or for the purpose of committing a crime of
a tort, or those made in furtherance of illicit activity.
(Wigmore)
Under the so-called last link doctrine, non-privileged
information, such as the identity of the client, is protected if
the revelation of such information would necessarily reveal
privileged information.
When the client and attorney become embroiled in a
controversy between themselves, the privilege is removed
from the attorneys lips. (Sokol v.Mortimer)
In relation to the attorney, the privilege is owned by the
client. It is he who can invoke the privilege.
The duty of a lawyer to preserve his clients secrets and
confidence outlasts the termination of the attorney-client
relationship, and continues even after the clients death.
(Mercado v. Vitriolo, 459 SCRA 1)
Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer are
protected by the rule on privileged communication even if
 the prospective client does not thereafter retain the lawyer
or the latter declines the employment. (Mercado v. Vitriolo,
supra)
The communication must be given by the client because
of the professional relation in order for it to be privileged.
Confidential communication refers to information transmitted
by voluntary act of disclosure between attorney and client in
confidence and by means which, so far as the client is aware,
discloses the information to no third person other than one
reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or
the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given
If the client seeks an accounting service or business or
personal assistance, and not legal advice, the privilege
does not attach to a communication disclosed for such
purpose. (Mercado v. Vitriolo, supra)
(c) A person authorized to practice
medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in
a civil case, without the consent of the
patient, be examined as to any advice or
treatment given by him or any
information which he may have acquired
in attending such patient in a
professional capacity, which information
was necessary to enable him to act in
capacity, and which would blacken the
reputation of the patient; May be waived by
the patient
The privilege cannot be claimed in a criminal case
presumably because the interest of the public in criminal
prosecution should be deemed more important that the
secrecy of information.
RATIONALE: To encourage the patient to freely disclose
all the matters which may aid in the diagnosis in the
treatment of a disease of an injury.
The rule does not require that the relationship between the
physician and the patient be a result of a contractual
relationship.
The physician may be said to be acting in a professional
capacity when he attends to the patient for either curative
or preventive treatment. Hence it is submitted that results
of autopsies may not be deemed covered by the privilege
because autopsies are not intended for treatment.
The privilege survives the death of the patient. (Bassil v.
Ford)
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without
the consent of the person making the
confession, be examined as to any
confession made to or any advice given
by him in his professional character in
the course of discipline enjoined by the
church to which the minister or priest
belongs;
Where the penitent discussed business arrangements with
the priest, the privilege does not apply. (U.S. v. Gordon)
(e) A public officer cannot be examined
during his term of office or afterwards,
as to communications made to him in
official confidence, when the court finds
that the public interest would suffer by
the disclosure.
Executive privilege the power of the government to withhold
information from the public, the courts, and the Congress
Some privileged matters:
1. Military;
2. Diplomatic;
3. Other national security matters;
4. Information on investigations of crimes by law
enforcement agencies before the prosecution;
5. Presidential conversations, correspondence, and
discussions in closed-door cabinet meetings.
Executive privilege can be invoked only in relation to
specific categories of information and not to categories of
persons. (Senate v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1)
When Congress exercises its powers of inquiry, the
department heads are not exempt by the mere fact that
they are department heads. Accordingly, only one
executive official may be exempted from the power of
inquiry of Congress the President upon whom executive
power is vested and is beyond the reach of Congress
except through the power of impeachment.
2. Testimonial Privilege
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. No
person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or
other direct descendants. (20a) So pwede ra mag
testify, di lang pwede pugson kung dili.
The privilege belongs to the person compelled to testify.
Under the parental privilege rule, a parent cannot be
compelled to testify against his child or other direct
ascendant.
Under the filial privilege rule, a child may not be compelled
to testify against his parents or other direct ascendants.
No descendant may be compelled, in a criminal case, to
testify against his parents and grandparents, except when
such testimony is indispensable in a crime, against the
descendant or by one parent against the other. (Art. 215,
Family Code)
Other privileged communications:
1. Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source
of published news;
 2. Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom partys reaction as an admission of something stated
they voted; or implied by the other person
3. Trade secrets;
4. Information contained in tax census returns; When adoptive admission occurs:
5. Bank deposits;
6. Information and statements made at conciliation 1. When a party expressly agrees to or concurs in an
proceedings. oral statement made by another;
2. When a party hears a statement and later on
3. Admissions and Confessions essentially repeats it;
3. When a party utters an acceptance or builds upon the
Section 26. Admission of a party. The act, assertion of another;
4. When a party replies by way of rebuttal to some
declaration or omission of a party as to a specific points raised by another but ignores further
relevant fact may be given in evidence against points which he or she has heard the other make; or
him. (22) Definition of admission 5. When a party reads and subsequently signs a written
statement made by another.
Admission a voluntary acknowledgement made by a party of
the existence of the truth of certain facts which are inconsistent Section 27. Offer of compromise not
with his claims in an action admissible. In civil cases, an offer of
compromise is not an admission of any liability,
Declarations of a party favorable to himself are not
and is not admissible in evidence against the
admissible as proof of the facts asserted. Such
declarations are self-serving. (Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. offeror.
286)
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-
ADMISSION CONFESSION offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed
There is mere a statement of There is an acknowledgement
fact not directly involving an of guilt
by law to be compromised, an offer of
acknowledgement of guilt or compromise by the accused may be received in
the criminal intent to commit evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
the offense with which one is
charged
A broader term which A specific type of admission A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an
includes confession unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser
May be implied like admission Cannot be implied
by silence offense, is not admissible in evidence against
May be a declaration, act, or Only a declaration the accused who made the plea or offer.
omission

Admission distinguished from declarations against interest:

1. To be admitted as declaration against interest, the
declarant must be dead or unable to testify; an
admission is admissible in evidence even if the
person making such is alive and is in court;
2. A declaration against interest is generally made
before the controversy arises; an admission is made
at any time, even during the trial;
3. A declaration against interest is generally made
against ones pecuniary or moral interest; an
admission is admissible as long as it is inconsistent
with his present claim of defense and need not be
against ones pecuniary or moral interest;
4. A declaration against interest is admissible even
against third persons; an admission is admissible only
against the party making it; and
5. A declaration against interest is an exception to the
hearsay rule; an admission is not, and is admissible
not as an exception to any rule.
Classification of admissions and confessions:
1. Express or implied;
2. Judicial or extrajudicial;
3. Adoptive a partys reaction to a statement or action
by another person when it is reasonable to treat the
An offer to pay or the payment of medical,
hospital or other expenses occasioned by an
injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of
civil or criminal liability for the injury. (24a)
Section 28. Admission by third party. The
rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided. Res inter alios acta rule
This rule only has reference to extrajudicial declarations.
Hence, statements made in open court by a witness
implicating persons, aside from his own judicial
admissions, are admissible as declarations from one who
has personal knowledge of the facts testified to.
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or
agent. The act or declaration of a partner or
agent of the party within the scope of his
authority and during the existence of the
partnership or agency, may be given in
evidence against such party after the
partnership or agency is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration. The same
rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint
owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly
interested with the party. (26a)
Requisites for admissibility:
1. That the act or declaration is made by a partner or
agent of the party;
2. That the act or declaration is made within the scope of
his authority;
3. That the act or declaration is made during the
existence of the partnership or agency;
4. That the existence of the partnership or agency is
proven by evidence other the act or declaration of the
partner or agent.
Section 30. Admission by conspirator. The
act or declaration of a conspirator relating to
the conspiracy and during its existence, may be
given in evidence against the co-conspirator
after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other
than such act of declaration.
Requisites for admissibility:
1. The declaration or act was made by a conspirator;
2. The declaration or act was made or done during the
existence of the conspiracy;
3. The declaration or act must relate to the conspiracy;
and
4. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other
than such declaration or act.
The declarations referred to in Sec. 30 are merely
extrajudicial statements or declarations. When he testifies
as a witness, his statements become judicial and are
admissible not only against him but also against his co-
accused.
Section 31. Admission by privies. Where one
derives title to property from another, the act,
declaration, or omission of the latter, while
holding the title, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former.
Requisites for admissibility:
1. There must be an act, declaration or omission by a
predecessor-in-interest;
2. The act, declaration, or omission of the predecessor
must have occurred while he was holding the title to
the property; and
3. The act, declaration or omission must be in relation to
the property.
Section 32. Admission by silence. An act or
declaration made in the presence and within the
hearing or observation of a party who does or
says nothing when the act or declaration is
such as naturally to call for action or comment
if not true, and when proper and possible for
him to do so, may be given in evidence against
him.
For silence to be deemed an admission, it is necessary that:
1. He heard and understood the statement;
2. He was at liberty to make a denial;
3. The statement was about a matter affecting his rights
or in which he was interested and which naturally
calls for a response;
4. The facts were within his knowledge; and
5. The fact admitted from his silence is material to the
issue. (People v. Paragsa, 84 SCRA 105)
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.
When after an event, measure are taken which, if taken
previously, would have made the event less likely to occur,
evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to
prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with
the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of
evidence of subsequent measures when offered for
another purpose, such as proving ownership, control or
feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or
impeachment. (FRE 407) Subsequent measure doctrine
4. Previous Conduct as Evidence
Section 34. Similar acts as evidence.
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to prove that
he did or did not do the same or similar thing at
another time; but it may be received to prove a
specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan,
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and
the like. (48a) Res inter alios acta rule
This rule only has reference to extrajudicial declarations.
Section 35. Unaccepted offer. An offer in
writing to pay a particular sum of money or to
deliver a written instrument or specific personal
property is, if rejected without valid cause,
equivalent to the actual production and tender
of the money, instrument, or property.
5. Testimonial Knowledge; Hearsay Rule
Section 36. Testimony generally confined to
personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. A
witness can testify only to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which
are derived from his own perception, except as
otherwise provided in these rules. (30a) The
Hearsay rule
The rule against hearsay testimony rests mainly on the
ground that there was no opportunity to cross-examine the
declarant. (Patula v. People, 669 SCRA 135)
Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force
depends, in whole or in part, on the competency and
credibility of some persons other than the witness by
whom it is sought to produce it. (Estrada v. Desierto, 356
SCRA 108)
Hearsay is not limited to oral testimony or statements. The
rule that excludes hearsay evidence applies to both written
and oral statement. (D.M. Consuji, Inc. v. CA, 357 SCRA
249)
Although hearsay evidence presupposes lack of personal
knowledge of the truth of the fact asserted by a witness,
the purpose for which the evidence is offered is a vital
element of hearsay evidence. It is the purpose for which
would determine whether the same is hearsay or not.
The ban on hearsay does not include statements which
are relevant independently of whether they are true or not,
like statements of a person to show, among others, his
state of mind, mental condition, knowledge, belief,
intention, ill-will and other emotions. (Estrada v. Desierto,
supra)
Specific elements of hearsay evidence:
1. Out-of-court statement not made by the declarant in
the hearing or tiral;
2. It is offered in evidence by the witness in court to
prove the truth of the matters asserted by the
statement. (The second element is the important
one.)
Example: In a slander case, if a prosecution witness testifies
that he heard the accused say that the complainant was a
thief, this testimony is admissible not to prove that the
complainant was really a thief, but merely to show that the
accused uttered those word.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE OPINION EVIDENCE
One that is not based on Based on the personal
ones personal perception but knowledge or personal
based on the knowledge of conclusions of the witness
others to prove the truth of the based on his skill, training or
matter asserted in an out-of- experience
court declaration
Newspaper articles amount to hearsay evidence twice
removed and are therefore not only inadmissible but
without any probative value at all whether objected to or
not, unless offered for a purpose other than proving the
truth of the matter asserted. (Feria v. CA, 325 SCRA 525)
Independently relevant statements those statements which
are relevant independently of whether they are true or not
Two classes of independently relevant statements:
1. Statements which are the very facts in issue;
2. Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the
fact in issue.
3. Statements of a person showing his state of mind,
that is, his mental condition, knowledge, belief,
intention, ill-will and other emotions;
4. Statements of a person which shows his physical
condition, as illness and the like;
5. Statements of a person from which an inference may
be made as to the state of mind of another, that is
knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc of the
latter;
6. Statements which may identify the date, place, and
person in question; and
7. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a
witness.
6. Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule (They are
hearsay but admissible) Hearsay jud sila...
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.
(BAR)
Dying declarations are admissible in favor of the
defendant as well as against him. (U.S. v. Antipolo, 37
Phil. 726)
The declarants belief in the imminence of his death can
be shown by the declarants own statements or from
circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of his wounds,
statements made in his presence, or by the opinion of his
physician. (People v. Salafranca, 666 SCRA 501)
Requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration:
1. The declaration is one made by a dying person;
2. The declaration is made by said dying person under
the consciousness of his impending death;
3. The declaration refers to the cause and
circumstances surrounding the death of the declarant
and not of anyone else;
4. The declaration is offered in a case where the
declarants death is the subject of inquiry;
5. The declarant is competent as a witness had he
survived;
6. The declarant should have died. (BAR)
As a general rule, when a person is at the point of death,
every motive of falsehood is silenced, and the mind is
induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the
truth, and therefore, the statements under such
circumstances deserve great weight. (People v.
Bacunawa, 356 SCRA 482)
No person who knows of his impending death would make
a careless or false accusation. A dying declaration is
 entitled to the highest respect. (People v. Lamasan, 403
SCRA 243)
Section 38. Declaration against interest. The
declaration made by a person deceased, or
unable to testify, against the interest of the
declarant, if the fact is asserted in the
declaration was at the time it was made so far
contrary to declarant's own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not have
made the declaration unless he believed it to be
true, may be received in evidence against
himself or his successors in interest and
against third persons. (32a)
Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree.
The act or declaration of a person deceased,
or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of
another person related to him by birth or
marriage, may be received in evidence where it
occurred before the controversy, and the
relationship between the two persons is shown
by evidence other than such act or declaration.
The word "pedigree" includes relationship,
family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the
dates when and the places where these fast
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It
embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree. (33a)
Requisites for the admissibility of act or declaration about
pedigree:
1. The declarant is dead, or unable to testify;
2. The declarant is related by birth or marriage to the
person whose pedigree is in issue;
3. The declaration was made before the controversy;
4. The relationship between the two persons is shown
by evidence other than such act or declaration.
Section 40. Family reputation or tradition
regarding pedigree. The reputation or
tradition existing in a family previous to the
controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any
one of its members, may be received in
evidence if the witness testifying thereon be
also a member of the family, either by
consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family
bibles or other family books or charts,
engravings on rings, family portraits and the
like, may be received as evidence of pedigree.
Requisites:
1. A statement by a member of the family either by
consanguinity or affinity;
2. The statement is about the reputation or tradition of
the family is respect to the pedigree of any member of
the family; and
3. The reputation or tradition is one existing previous to
the controversy.
Section 41. Common reputation. Common
reputation existing previous to the controversy,
respecting facts of public or general interest
more than thirty years old, or respecting
marriage or moral character, may be given in
evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public
places may be received as evidence of common
reputation. (35)
Section 42. Part of res gestae. Statements
made by a person while a starting occurrence is
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent
thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res
gestae. (Spontaneous statements) So, also,
statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res
gestae. (Verbal acts) (BAR)
The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res
gestae is whether the act, declaration, exclamation is so
intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact
or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of
the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives
any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.
(People v. Villarico, Sr., 647 SCRA 43)
It has been held that in spontaneous exclamations or
statements, the res gestae is the startling occurrence,
whereas in verbal acts, the res gestae are the statements
accompanying the equivocal act. (Talidano v. Falcom, 558
SCRA 279)
Requisites for the admissibility of spontaneous statements:
1. There is a startling event or occurrence taking place;
2. A statement was made while the event is taking place
or immediately prior to or subsequent thereto;
3. The statement was made before the declarant had
time to contrive or devise falsehood; and
4. The statement relates to the circumstances of the
startling event or occurrence, or that the statements
must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediate attending circumstances.
If there is not showing in the records that the victim was
under a consciousness of an impending death at the time
of his declaration that the accused was the one who shot
him, the same is not admissible as a dying declaration, but
because it was made shortly after a startling occurrence
and under the influence thereof, it is nonetheless
admissible as part of the res gestae. (People v. Espina,
361 SCRA 701)
Requisites for the admissibility of verbal acts:
1. The principal act to be characterized must be
equivocal;
2. The equivocal act must be material to the issue;
3. The statement must accompany the equivocal act;
and
4. The statement gives a legal significance to the
equivocal act.
Section 43. Entries in the course of business.
Entries made at, or near the time of
transactions to which they refer, by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a
position to know the facts therein stated, may
be received as prima facie evidence, if such
person made the entries in his professional
capacity or in the performance of duty and in
the ordinary or regular course of business or
duty. (37a)
Requisites for the admissibility of entries in the course of
business:
1. The person who made the entry must be dead or
unable to testify;
2. The entries were made at or near the time of the
transactions to which they refer;
3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated
in the entries;
4. The entries were made in his professional capacity or
in the performance of a duty, whether legal,
contractual, moral, or religious; and
5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular
course of business.
Section 44. Entries in official records. Entries
in official records made in the performance of
his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or
by a person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law, are prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. (38)
Requisites for the admissibility of entries in official records:
1. The entry was made by a public officer or by another
person specially enjoined by law to do so;
2. It was made by the public officer, or by such other
person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined
by law; and
3. The public officer or other person had sufficient
knowledge of the facts by him or her stated, which
must have been acquired by the public officer or other
person personally or through official information.
Section 45. Commercial lists and the like.
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation contained in
a list, register, periodical, or other published
compilation is admissible as tending to prove
the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that
compilation is published for use by persons
engaged in that occupation and is generally
used and relied upon by them therein. (39)
Section 46. Learned treatises. A 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 the court takes judicial notice, or 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. (40a)
Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former
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. (41a)
7. Opinion Rule
Section 48. GENERAL RULE. The opinion of
witness is not admissible, except as indicated
in the following sections. (BAR)
Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. The
opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience or training
which he shown to posses, may be received in
evidence. (BAR)
Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive. When faced
with conflicting expert opinions, courts give weight and
credence to that which is more complete, thorough and
scientific. (Bacalso v. Padigos, 552 SCRA 185)
The resort to handwriting experts, although helpful in the
examination of forged documents because of the technical
procedure involved in analyzing them, is not mandatory or
indispensable to the examination or comparison of
handwriting, and a finding of forgery does not entirely
depend upon the testimony of these experts. (Libres v.
Delos Santos, 554 SCRA 642)
Section 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses.
The opinion of a witness for which proper basis
is given, may be received in evidence regarding
(a) the identity of a person about whom
he has adequate knowledge;
 (b) A handwriting with which he has
sufficient familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with
whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions
of the emotion, behavior, condition or
appearance of a person. (BAR)
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.
(3) 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,
Section 14. (46a, 47a)
Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness.
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible
until such character has been impeached.
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
Whereas, case congestion and delays plague most courts in
cities, given the huge volume of cases filed each year and the
slow and cumbersome adversarial syste1n that the judiciary
has in place;
Whereas, about 40% of criminal cases are dismissed annually
owing to the fact that complainants simply give up con1ing to
court after repeated postponements;
Whereas, few foreign businessmen make long-term
investments in the Philippines because its courts are unable to
provide ample and speedy protection to their investments,
keeping its people poor;
Whereas, in order to reduce the time needed for completing
the testimonies of witnesses in cases under litigation, on
February 21, 2012 the Supreme Court approved for piloting by
trial courts in Quezon City the compulsory use of judicial
affidavits in place of the direct testimonies of witnesses;
Whereas, it is reported that such piloting has quickly resulted in
reducing by about two-thirds the time used for presenting the
testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and
adjudication of cases;
Whereas, the Supreme Court Committee on the Revision of
the Rules of Court, headed by Senior Associate Justice
Antonio T. Carpio, and the Sub-Committee on the Revision of
the Rules on Civil Procedure, headed by Associate Justice
Roberto A. Abad, have recommended for adoption a Judicial
Affidavit Rule that will replicate nationwide the success of the
Quezon City experience in the use of judicial affidavits; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court En Banc finds merit in the
recommendation;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court En Banc hereby
issues and promulgates the following:
Section 1. Scope. - (a) This Rule shall apply to all actions,
proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of evidence
before:
(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal
Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts, and the Shari' a Circuit Courts but
shall not apply to small claims cases under
A.M. 08-8-7-SC;
(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a
District Courts;
(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax
Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the
Shari'a Appellate Courts;
(4) The investigating officers and bodies
authorized by the Supreme Court to receive
evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the
Philippine (IBP); and
 (5) The special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject
to disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar
as their existing rules of procedure
contravene the provisions of this Rule.
(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts,
quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers shall be
uniformly referred to here as the "court."
Section 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu
of direct testimonies. - (a) The parties shall file with the court
and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed
courier service, not later than five days before pre-trial or
preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing with respect
to motions and incidents, the following:
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses,
which shall take the place of such witnesses'
direct testimonies; and
(2) The parties' docun1entary or object
evidence, if any, which shall be attached to
the judicial affidavits and marked as Exhibits
A, B, C, and so on in the case of the
complainant or the plaintiff, and as Exhibits
1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of the
respondent or the defendant.
(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the
original document or object evidence in his
possession, he may, after the same has been
identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated,
warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy or
reproduction attached to such affidavit is a faithful
copy or reproduction of that original. In addition, the
party or witness shall bring the original document or
object evidence for comparison during the preliminary
conference with the attached copy, reproduction, or
pictures, failing which the latter shall not be admitted.
This is without prejudice to the introduction of secondary
evidence in place of the original when allowed by existing
rules.
Section 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit. - A judicial affidavit
shall be prepared in the language known to the witness and, if
not in English or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in
English or Filipino, and shall contain the following:
(a) The name, age, residence or business address,
and occupation of the witness;
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who
conducts or supervises the examination of the witness
and the place where the examination is being held;
(c) A statement that the witness is answering the
questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does
so under oath, and that he may face criminal liability
for false testimony or perjury;
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his
corresponding answers, consecutively numbered,
that:
(1) Show the circumstances under which the
witness acquired the facts upon which he
testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are
relevant to the issues that the case presents;
and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and
object evidence and establish their
authenticity in accordance with the Rules of
Court;
(e) The signature of the witness over his printed
name; and
(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public who
administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by
law to administer the same.
Section 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. - (a) The judicial
affidavit shall contain a sworn attestation at the end, executed
by the lawyer who conducted or supervised the examination of
the witness, to the effect that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be
recorded the questions he asked and the
corresponding answers that the witness
gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then
present or assisting him coached the witness
regarding the latter's answers.
(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer
mentioned to disciplinary action, including disbarment.
Section 5. Subpoena. - If the government employee or official,
or the requested witness, who is neither the witness of the
adverse party nor a hostile witness, unjustifiably declines to
execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without just cause to
make the relevant books, documents, or other things under his
control available for copying, authentication, and eventual
production in court, the requesting party may avail himself of
the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces
tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. The rules
governing the issuance of a subpoena to the witness in this
case shall be the same as when taking his deposition except
that the taking of a judicial affidavit shal1 be understood to
be ex parte.
Section 6. Offer of and objections to testimony in judicial
affidavit. - The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his
witness in place of direct testimony shall state the purpose of
such testimony at the start of the presentation of the witness.
The adverse party may move to disqualify the witness or to
strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it on
ground of inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the
motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any
excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of
an authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a tender of
excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court.
Section 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial affidavit. -
The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the
witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to
the same. The party who presents the witness may also
examine him as on re-direct. In every case, the court shall take
active part in examining the witness to determine his credibility
as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers
that it needs for resolving the issues.
Section 8. Oral offer of and objections to exhibits. - (a) Upon
the termination of the testimony of his last witness, a party
shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his
documentary or object exhibits, piece by piece, in their
chronological order, stating the purpose or purposes for which
he offers the particular exhibit.
(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse
party shall state the legal ground for his objection, if
any, to its admission, and the court shall immediately
make its ruling respecting that exhibit.
(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form part
of the judicial affidavits that describe and authenticate
them, it is sufficient that such exhibits are simply cited
by their markings during the offers, the objections,
and the rulings, dispensing with the description of
each exhibit.
Section 9. Application of rule to criminal actions. - (a) This rule
shall apply to all criminal actions:
(1) Where the maximum of the imposable
penalty does not exceed six years;
(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of
judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty
involved; or
(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the
actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits
of its witnesses not later than five days before the pre-
trial, serving copies if the same upon the accused.
The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to
the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as
he may have, marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and
so on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or
object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.
(c) If the accused desires to be heard on his defense
after receipt of the judicial affidavits of the
prosecution, he shall have the option to submit his
judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses to
the court within ten days from receipt of such
affidavits and serve a copy of each on the public and
private prosecutor, including his documentary and
object evidence previously marked as Exhibits 1, 2, 3,
and so on. These affidavits shall serve as direct
testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when
they appear before the court to testify.
Section 10. Effect of non-compliance with the judicial Affidavit
Rule. - (a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial
affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived
their submission. The court may, however, allow only once the
late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid
reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the
defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor
more than P5,000.00 at the discretion of the court.
(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any
witness who fails to appear at the scheduled hearing
of the case as required. Counsel who fails to appear
without valid cause despite notice shall be deemed to
have waived his client's right to confront by cross-
examination the witnesses there present.
(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial
affidavits that do not conform to the content
requirements of Section 3 and the attestation
requirement of Section 4 above. The court may,
however, allow only once the subsequent submission
of the compliant replacement affidavits before the
hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason
and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party
and provided further, that public or private counsel
responsible for their preparation and submission pays
a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more
than P 5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
The waiver would mean that a party who failed to submit
the judicial affidavit of a particular witness would have no
direct testimony for that witness and the documentary
evidence or object evidence integrated with such affidavit
could not be identified, marked as an exhibit, and
authenticated. In effect, the exhibit could not be offered in
evidence.
If the waiver extends to the required affidavits of all the
witnesses of a party because all the judicial affidavits were
not file and served, then said party is deemed to have not
presented his evidence-in-chief for his case.
Section 11. Repeal or modification of inconsistent rules. - The
provisions of the Rules of Court and the rules of procedure
governing investigating officers and bodies authorized by the
Supreme Court to receive evidence are repealed or modified
insofar as these are inconsistent with the provisions of this
Rule.1wphi1
The rules of procedure governing quasi-judicial bodies
inconsistent herewith are hereby disapproved.
Section 12. Effectivity. - This rule shall take effect on January
1, 2013 following its publication in two newspapers of general
circulation not later than September 15, 2012. It shall also
apply to existing cases.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS (A.M. 004-
07-SC)
Section 1. Applicability of the Rule. - Unless otherwise
provided, this Rule shall govern the examination of child
witnesses who are victims of crime, accused of a crime, and
witnesses to crime. It shall apply in all criminal proceedings
and non-criminal proceedings involving child witnesses.
Section 2. Objectives. - The objectives of this Rule are to
create and maintain an environment that will allow children to
give reliable and complete evidence, minimize trauma to
children, encourage children to testify in legal proceedings, and
facilitate the ascertainment of truth.
Section 3. Construction of the Rule. - This Rule shall be
liberally construed to uphold the best interests of the child and
to promote maximum accommodation of child witnesses
without prejudice to the constitutional rights of the accused.
Section 4. Definitions. -
(a) A "child witness" is any person who at the time of
giving testimony is below the age of eighteen (18)
years. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over
eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as
unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself
from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or
discrimination because of a physical or mental
disability or condition.
(b) "Child abuse" means physical, psychological, or
sexual abuse, and criminal neglect as defined in
Republic Act No. 7610 and other related laws.
(c) "Facilitator" means a person appointed by the
court to pose questions to a child.
(d) "Record regarding a child" or "record" means any
photograph, videotape, audiotape, film, handwriting,
typewriting, printing, electronic recording, computer
data or printout, or other memorialization, including
any court document, pleading, or any copy or
reproduction of any of the foregoing, that contains the
name, description, address, school, or any other
personal identifying information about a child or his
family and that is produced or maintained by a public
agency, private agency, or individual.
(e) A "guardian ad litem" is a person appointed by the
court where the case is pending for a child who is a
victim of, accused of, or a witness to a crime to
protect the best interests of the said child.
(f) A "support person" is a person chosen by the child
to accompany him to testify at or attend a judicial
proceeding or deposition to provide emotional support
for him.
(g) "Best interests of the child" means the totality of
the circumstances and conditions as are most
congenial to the survival, protection, and feelings of
security of the child and most encouraging to his
physical, psychological, and emotional development.
It also means the least detrimental available
alternative for safeguarding the growth and
development of the child.
(h) "Developmental level" refers to the specific growth
phase in which most individuals are expected to
behave and function in relation to the advancement of
their physical, socio-emotional, cognitive, and moral
abilities.
(i) "In-depth investigative interview" or "disclosure
interview" is an inquiry or proceeding conducted by
duly trained members of a multidisciplinary team or
representatives of law enforcement or child protective
services for the purpose of determining whether child
abuse has been committed.
Section 5. Guardian ad litem. -
(a) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for a
child who is a victim of, accused of, or a witness to a
crime to promote the best interests of the child. In
making the appointment, the court shall consider the
background of the guardian ad litem and his familiarity
with the judicial process, social service programs, and
child development, giving preference to the parents of
the child, if qualified. The guardian ad litem may be a
member of the Philippine Bar. A person who is a
witness in any proceeding involving the child cannot
be appointed as a guardian ad litem.
(b) The guardian ad litem:
(1) Shall attend all interviews, depositions,
hearings, and trial proceedings in which a
child participates;
(2) Shall make recommendations to the court
concerning the welfare of the child;
(3) Shall have access to all reports,
evaluations, and records necessary to
effectively advocate for the child, except
privileged communications;
(4) Shall marshal and coordinate the delivery
of resources and special services to the
child;
(5) Shall explain, in language
understandable to the child, all legal
proceedings, including police investigations,
in which the child is involved;
(6) Shall assist the child and his family in
coping with the emotional effects of crime
and subsequent criminal or non-criminal
proceedings in which the child is involved;
(7) May remain with the child while the child
waits to testify;
(8) May interview witnesses; and
 (9) May request additional examinations by
medical or mental health professionals if
there is a compelling need therefor.
(c) The guardian ad litem shall be notified of all
proceedings but shall not participate in the trial.
However, he may file motions pursuant to sections 9,
10, 25, 26, 27 and 31(c). If the guardian ad litem is a
lawyer, he may object during trial that questions
asked of the child are not appropriate to his
developmental level.
(d) The guardian ad litem may communicate concerns
regarding the child to the court through an officer of
the court designated for that purpose.
(e) The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any
proceeding concerning any information, statement, or
opinion received from the child in the course of
serving as a guardian ad litem, unless the court finds
it necessary to promote the best interests of the child.
(f) The guardian ad litem shall be presumed to have
acted in good faith in compliance with his duties
described in sub-section (b).
Section 6. Competency. - Every child is presumed qualified to
be a witness. However, the court shall conduct a competency
examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party,
when it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability
of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish
truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in
court.
(a) Proof of necessity. - A party seeking a
competency examination must present proof of
necessity of competency examination. The age of the
child by itself is not a sufficient basis for a
competency examination.
(b) Burden of proof. - To rebut the presumption of
competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof
lies on the party challenging his competence.
(c) Persons allowed at competency examination. Only
the following are allowed to attend a competency
examination:
(1) The judge and necessary court
personnel;
(2) The counsel for the parties;
(3) The guardian ad litem;
(4) One or more support persons for the
child; and
(5) The defendant, unless the court
determines that competence can be fully
evaluated in his absence.
(d) Conduct of examination. - Examination of a child
as to his competence shall be conducted only by the
judge. Counsel for the parties, however, can submit
questions to the judge that he may, in his discretion,
ask the child.
(e) Developmentally appropriate questions. - The
questions asked at the competency examination shall
be appropriate to the age and developmental level of
the child; shall not be related to the issues at trial; and
shall focus on the ability of the child to remember,
communicate, distinguish between truth and
falsehood, and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully.
(f) Continuing duty to assess competence. - The court
has the duty of continuously assessing the
competence of the child throughout his testimony.
Section 7. Oath or affirmation. - Before testifying, a child
shall take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth.
Section 8. Examination of a child witness. - The
examination of a child witness presented in a hearing or any
proceeding shall be done in open court. Unless the witness is
incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different
mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given
orally.
The party who presents a child witness or the guardian ad
litem of such child witness may, however, move the court to
allow him to testify in the manner provided in this Rule.
Section 9. Interpreter for child. -
(a) When a child does not understand the English or
Filipino language or is unable to communicate in said
languages due to his developmental level, fear,
shyness, disability, or other similar reason, an
interpreter whom the child can understand and who
understands the child may be appointed by the court,
motu proprio or upon motion, to interpret for the child.
(b) If a witness or member of the family of the child is
the only person who can serve as an interpreter for
the child, he shall not be disqualified and may serve
as the interpreter of the child. The interpreter,
however, who is also a witness, shall testify ahead of
the child.
(c) An interpreter shall take an oath or affirmation to
make a true and accurate interpretation.
Section 10. Facilitator to pose questions to child. -
(a) The court may, motu proprio or upon motion,
appoint a facilitator if it determines that the child is
unable to understand or respond to questions asked.
The facilitator may be a child psychologist,
psychiatrist, social worker, guidance counselor,
teacher, religious leader, parent, or relative.
(b) If the court appoints a facilitator, the respective
counsels for the parties shall pose questions to the
child only through the facilitator. The questions shall
either be in the words used by counsel or, if the child
is not likely to understand the same, in words that are
 comprehensible to the child and which convey the
meaning intended by counsel.
(c) The facilitator shall take an oath or affirmation to
pose questions to the child according to the meaning
intended by counsel.
Section 11. Support persons. -
(a) A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or making
a deposition shall have the right to be accompanied
by one or two persons of his own choosing to provide
him emotional support.
(1) Both support persons shall remain within
the view of the child during his testimony.
(2) One of the support persons may
accompany the child to the witness stand,
provided the support person does not
completely obscure the child from the view of
the opposing party, judge, or hearing officer.
(3) The court may allow the support person
to hold the hand of the child or take other
appropriate steps to provide emotional
support to the child in the course of the
proceedings.
(4) The court shall instruct the support
persons not to prompt, sway, or influence the
child during his testimony.
(b) If the support person chosen by the child is also a
witness, the court may disapprove the choice if it is
sufficiently established that the attendance of the
support person during the testimony of the child would
pose a substantial risk of influencing or affecting the
content of the testimony of the child.
(c) If the support person who is also a witness is
allowed by the court, his testimony shall be presented
ahead of the testimony of the child.
Section 12. Waiting area for child witnesses. - The courts
are encouraged to provide a waiting area for children that is
separate from waiting areas used by other persons. The
waiting area for children should be furnished so as to make a
child comfortable.
Section 13. Courtroom environment. - To create a more
comfortable environment for the child, the court may, in its
discretion, direct and supervise the location, movement and
deportment of all persons in the courtroom including the
parties, their counsel, child, witnesses, support persons,
guardian ad litem, facilitator, and court personnel. The child
may be allowed to testify from a place other than the witness
chair. The witness chair or other place from which the child
testifies may be turned to facilitate his testimony but the
opposing party and his counsel must have a frontal or profile
view of the child during the testimony of the child. The witness
chair or other place from which the child testifies may also be
rearranged to allow the child to see the opposing party and his
counsel, if he chooses to look at them, without turning his body
or leaving the witness stand. The judge need not wear his
judicial robe.
Nothing in this section or any other provision of law, except
official in-court identification provisions, shall be construed to
require a child to look at the accused.
Accommodations for the child under this section need not be
supported by a finding of trauma to the child.
Section 14. Testimony during appropriate hours. - The
court may order that the testimony of the child should be taken
during a time of day when the child is well-rested.
Section 15. Recess during testimony. -
The child may be allowed reasonable periods of relief while
undergoing direct, cross, re-direct, and re-cross examinations
as often as necessary depending on his developmental level.
Section 16. Testimonial aids. - The court shall permit a child
to use dolls, anatomically-correct dolls, puppets, drawings,
mannequins, or any other appropriate demonstrative device to
assist him in his testimony.
Section 17. Emotional security item. - While testifying, a
child shall be allowed to have an item of his own choosing
such as a blanket, toy, or doll.
Section 18. Approaching the witness. - The court may
prohibit a counsel from approaching a child if it appears that
the child is fearful of or intimidated by the counsel.
Section 19. Mode of questioning. - The court shall exercise
control over the questioning of children so as to (1) facilitate
the ascertainment of the truth, (2) ensure that questions are
stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the
child, (3) protect children from harassment or undue
embarrassment, and (4) avoid waste of time.
The court may allow the child witness to testify in a narrative
form.
Section 20. Leading questions. - The court may allow
leading questions in all stages of examination of a child if the
same will further the interests of justice.
Section 21. Objections to questions. - Objections to
questions should be couched in a manner so as not to mislead,
confuse, frighten, or intimidate the child.
Section 22. Corroboration. - Corroboration shall not be
required of a testimony of a child. His testimony, if credible by
itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion,
or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in
criminal and non-criminal cases.
Section 23. Excluding the public. - When a child testifies, the
court may order the exclusion from the courtroom of all
persons, including members of the press, who do not have a
direct interest in the case. Such an order may be made to
protect the right to privacy of the child or if the court determines
on the record that requiring the child to testify in open court
would cause psychological harm to him, hinder the
ascertainment of truth, or result in his inability to effectively
communicate due to embarrassment, fear, or timidity. In
making its order, the court shall consider the developmental
level of the child, the nature of the crime, the nature of his
testimony regarding the crime, his relationship to the accused
and to persons attending the trial, his desires, and the interests
of his parents or legal guardian. The court may, motu proprio,
exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be
produced during trial is of such character as to be offensive to
decency or public morals. The court may also, on motion of the
accused, exclude the public from trial, except court personnel
and the counsel of the parties.
Section 24. Persons prohibited from entering and leaving
courtroom. - The court may order that persons attending the
trial shall not enter or leave the courtroom during the testimony
of the child.
Section 25. Live-link television testimony in criminal cases
where the child is a victim or a witness. -
(a) The prosecutor, counsel or the guardian ad litem
may apply for an order that the testimony of the child
be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be
televised to the courtroom by live-link television.
Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order
under this section, he shall consult the prosecutor or
counsel and shall defer to the judgment of the
prosecutor or counsel regarding the necessity of
applying for an order. In case the guardian ad ltiem is
convinced that the decision of the prosecutor or
counsel not to apply will cause the child serious
emotional trauma, he himself may apply for the order.
The person seeking such an order shall apply at least
five (5) days before the trial date, unless the court
finds on the record that the need for such an order
was not reasonably foreseeable.
(b) The court may motu proprio hear and determine,
with notice to the parties, the need for taking the
testimony of the child through live-link television.
(c) The judge may question the child in chambers, or
in some comfortable place other than the courtroom,
in the presence of the support person, guardian ad
litem, prosecutor, and counsel for the parties. The
questions of the judge shall not be related to the
issues at trial but to the feelings of the child about
testifying in the courtroom.
(d) The judge may exclude any person, including the
accused, whose presence or conduct causes fear to
the child.
(e) The court shall issue an order granting or denying
the use of live-link television and stating the reasons
therefor. It shall consider the following factors:
(1) The age and level of development of the
child;
(2) His physical and mental health, including
any mental or physical disability;
(3) Any physical, emotional, or psychological
injury experienced by him;
(4) The nature of the alleged abuse;
(5) Any threats against the child;
(6) His relationship with the accused or
adverse party;
(7) His reaction to any prior encounters with
the accused in court or elsewhere;
(8) His reaction prior to trial when the topic of
testifying was discussed with him by parents
or professionals;
(9) Specific symptoms of stress exhibited by
the child in the days prior to testifying;
(10) Testimony of expert or lay witnesses;
(11) The custodial situation of the child and
the attitude of the members of his family
regarding the events about which he will
testify; and
(12) Other relevant factors, such as court
atmosphere and formalities of court
procedure.
(f) The court may order that the testimony of the child
be taken by live-link television if there is a substantial
likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from
testifying in the presence of the accused, his counsel
or the prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma
must be of a kind which would impair the
completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the
child. BAR
(g) If the court orders the taking of testimony by live-
link television:
(1) The child shall testify in a room separate
from the courtroom in the presence of the
guardian ad litem; one or both of his support
persons; the facilitator and interpreter, if any;
a court officer appointed by the court;
persons necessary to operate the closed-
circuit television equipment; and other
persons whose presence are determined by
the court to be necessary to the welfare and
well-being of the child;
(2) The judge, prosecutor, accused, and
counsel for the parties shall be in the
courtroom. The testimony of the child shall
be transmitted by live-link television into the
courtroom for viewing and hearing by the
judge, prosecutor, counsel for the parties,
 accused, victim, and the public unless
excluded.
(3) If it is necessary for the child to identify
the accused at trial, the court may allow the
child to enter the courtroom for the limited
purpose of identifying the accused, or the
court may allow the child to identify the
accused by observing the image of the latter
on a television monitor.
(4) The court may set other conditions and
limitations on the taking of the testimony that
it finds just and appropriate, taking into
consideration the best interests of the child.
(h) The testimony of the child shall be preserved on
videotape, digital disc, or other similar devices which
shall be made part of the court record and shall be
subject to a protective order as provided in section
31(b).
Section 26. Screens, one-way mirrors, and other devices
to shield child from accused. -
(a) The prosecutor or the guardian ad litem may apply
for an order that the chair of the child or that a screen
or other device be placed in the courtroom in such a
manner that the child cannot see the accused while
testifying. Before the guardian ad litem applies for an
order under this section, he shall consult with the
prosecutor or counsel subject to the second and third
paragraphs of section 25(a) of this Rule. The court
shall issue an order stating the reasons and
describing the approved courtroom arrangement.
(b) If the court grants an application to shield the child
from the accused while testifying in the courtroom, the
courtroom shall be arranged to enable the accused to
view the child.
Section 27. Videotaped deposition. -
(a) The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad litem may
apply for an order that a deposition be taken of the
testimony of the child and that it be recorded and
preserved on videotape. Before the guardian ad litem
applies for an order under this section, he shall
consult with the prosecutor or counsel subject to the
second and third paragraphs of section 25(a).
(b) If the court finds that the child will not be able to
testify in open court at trial, it shall issue an order that
the deposition of the child be taken and preserved by
videotape.
(c) The judge shall preside at the videotaped
deposition of a child. Objections to deposition
testimony or evidence, or parts thereof, and the
grounds for the objection shall be stated and shall be
ruled upon at the time of the taking of the deposition.
The other persons who may be permitted to be
present at the proceeding are:
(1) The prosecutor;
(2) The defense counsel;
(3) The guardian ad litem;
(4) The accused, subject to sub-section (e);
(5) Other persons whose presence is
determined by the court to be necessary to
the welfare and well-being of the child;
(6) One or both of his support persons, the
facilitator and interpreter, if any;
(7) The court stenographer; and
(8) Persons necessary to operate the
videotape equipment.
(d) The rights of the accused during trial, especially
the right to counsel and to confront and cross-
examine the child, shall not be violated during the
deposition.
(e) If the order of the court is based on evidence that
the child is unable to testify in the physical presence
of the accused, the court may direct the latter to be
excluded from the room in which the deposition is
conducted. In case of exclusion of the accused, the
court shall order that the testimony of the child be
taken by live-link television in accordance with section
25 of this Rule. If the accused is excluded from the
deposition, it is not necessary that the child be able to
view an image of the accused.
(f) The videotaped deposition shall be preserved and
stenographically recorded. The videotape and the
stenographic notes shall be transmitted to the clerk of
the court where the case is pending for safekeeping
and shall be made a part of the record.
(g) The court may set other conditions on the taking of
the deposition that it finds just and appropriate, taking
into consideration the best interests of the child, the
constitutional rights of the accused, and other relevant
factors.
(h) The videotaped deposition and stenographic notes
shall be subject to a protective order as provided in
section 31(b).
(i) If, at the time of trial, the court finds that the child is
unable to testify for a reason stated in section 25(f) of
this Rule, or is unavailable for any reason described
in section 4(c), Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, the court may admit into evidence the
videotaped deposition of the child in lieu of his
testimony at the trial. The court shall issue an order
stating the reasons therefor.
(j) After the original videotaping but before or during
trial, any party may file any motion for additional
videotaping on the ground of newly discovered
 evidence. The court may order an additional
videotaped deposition to receive the newly discovered
evidence.
Section 28. Hearsay exception in child abuse cases. - A
statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act
of child abuse, not otherwise admissible under the hearsay
rule, may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-
criminal proceeding subject to the following rules:
(a) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted,
its proponent shall make known to the adverse party
the intention to offer such statement and its
particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object.
If the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of
the adverse party, require the child to be present at
the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-
examination by the adverse party. When the child is
unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be
proved by the proponent.
(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 a motive to lie;
(2) The general character of the declarant
child;
(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 the
declarant child is remote; and
(8) The circumstances surrounding the
statement are such that there is no reason to
suppose the declarant child misrepresented
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.
Section 29. Admissibility of videotaped and audiotaped in-
depth investigative or disclosure interviews in child abuse
cases. - The court may admit videotape and audiotape in-
depth investigative or disclosure interviews as evidence, under
the following conditions:
(a) The child witness is unable to testify in court on
grounds and under conditions established under
section 28 (c).
(b) The interview of the child was conducted by duly
trained members of a multidisciplinary team or
representatives of law enforcement or child protective
services in situations where child abuse is suspected
so as to determine whether child abuse occurred.
(c) The party offering the videotape or audiotape must
prove that:
(1) the videotape or audiotape discloses the
identity of all individuals present and at all
times includes their images and voices;
(2) the statement was not made in response
to questioning calculated to lead the child to
make a particular statement or is clearly
shown to be the statement of the child and
not the product of improper suggestion;
(3) the videotape and audiotape machine or
device was capable of recording testimony;
(4) the person operating the device was
competent to operate it;
(5) the videotape or audiotape is authentic
and correct; and
(6) it has been duly preserved.
The individual conducting the interview of the child shall be
available at trial for examination by any party. Before the
videotape or audiotape is offered in evidence, all parties shall
be afforded an opportunity to view or listen to it and shall be
furnished a copy of a written transcript of the proceedings.
The fact that an investigative interview is not videotaped or
audiotaped as required by this section shall not by itself
constitute a basis to exclude from evidence out-of-court
statements or testimony of the child. It may, however, be
considered in determining the reliability of the statements of
the child describing abuse.
Section 30. Sexual abuse shield rule. -
(a) Inadmissible evidence. - The following evidence is
not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving
alleged child sexual abuse:
 (1) Evidence offered to prove that the
alleged victim engaged in other sexual
behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual
predisposition of the alleged victim.
(b) Exception. - Evidence of specific instances of
sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a
person other than the accused was the source of
semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be
admissible.
A party intending to offer such evidence must:
(1) File a written motion at least fifteen (15) days
before trial, specifically describing the evidence and
stating the purpose for which it is offered, unless the
court, for good cause, requires a different time for
filing or permits filing during trial; and
(2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian
ad litem at least three (3) days before the hearing of
the motion.
Before admitting such evidence, the court must conduct a
hearing in chambers and afford the child, his guardian ad litem,
the parties, and their counsel a right to attend and be heard.
The motion and the record of the hearing must be sealed and
remain under seal and protected by a protective order set forth
in section 31(b). The child shall not be required to testify at the
hearing in chambers except with his consent.
Section 31. Protection of privacy and safety. -
(a) Confidentiality of records. - Any record regarding a
child shall be confidential and kept under seal. Except
upon written request and order of the court, a record
shall only be released to the following:
(1) Members of the court staff for
administrative use;
(2) The prosecuting attorney;
(3) Defense counsel;
(4) The guardian ad litem;
(5) Agents of investigating law enforcement
agencies; and
(6) Other persons as determined by the
court.
(b) Protective order. - Any videotape or audiotape of a
child that is part of the court record shall be under a
protective order that provides as follows:
(1) Tapes may be viewed only by parties,
their counsel, their expert witness, and the
guardian ad litem.
(2) No tape, or any portion thereof, shall be
divulged by any person mentioned in sub-
section (a) to any other person, except as
necessary for the trial.
(3) No person shall be granted access to the
tape, its transcription or any part thereof
unless he signs a written affirmation that he
has received and read a copy of the
protective order; that he submits to the
jurisdiction of the court with respect to the
protective order; and that in case of violation
thereof, he will be subject to the contempt
power of the court.
(4) Each of the tape cassettes and
transcripts thereof made available to the
parties, their counsel, and respective agents
shall bear the following cautionary notice:
"This object or document and the contents
thereof are subject to a protective order
issued by the court in (case title) , (case
number) . They shall not be examined,
inspected, read, viewed, or copied by any
person, or disclosed to any person, except
as provided in the protective order. No
additional copies of the tape or any of its
portion shall be made, given, sold, or shown
to any person without prior court order. Any
person violating such protective order is
subject to the contempt power of the court
and other penalties prescribed by law."
(5) No tape shall be given, loaned, sold, or
shown to any person except as ordered by
the court.
(6) Within thirty (30) days from receipt, all
copies of the tape and any transcripts
thereof shall be returned to the clerk of court
for safekeeping unless the period is
extended by the court on motion of a party.
(7) This protective order shall remain in full
force and effect until further order of the
court.
(c) Additional protective orders. - The court may, motu
proprio or on motion of any party, the child, his
parents, legal guardian, or the guardian ad litem,
issue additional orders to protect the privacy of the
child.
(d) Publication of identity contemptuous. - Whoever
publishes or causes to be published in any format the
name, address, telephone number, school, or other
identifying information of a child who is or is alleged to
be a victim or accused of a crime or a witness thereof,
or an immediate family of the child shall be liable to
the contempt power of the court.
(e) Physical safety of child; exclusion of evidence. - A
child has a right at any court proceeding not to testify
regarding personal identifying information, including
 his name, address, telephone number, school, and
other information that could endanger his physical
safety or his family. The court may, however, require
the child to testify regarding personal identifying
information in the interest of justice.

(f) Destruction of videotapes and audiotapes. - Any

videotape or audiotape of a child produced under the
provisions of this Rule or otherwise made part of the
court record shall be destroyed after five (5) years
have elapsed from the date of entry of judgment.

(g) Records of youthful offender. - Where a youthful

offender has been charged before any city or
provincial prosecutor or before any municipal judge
and the charges have been ordered dropped, all the
records of the case shall be considered as privileged
and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to
anyone for any purpose whatsoever.

Where a youthful offender has been charged and the court

acquits him, or dismisses the case or commits him to an
institution and subsequently releases him pursuant to Chapter
3 of P. D. No. 603, all the records of his case shall also be
considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or
indirectly to anyone except to determine if a defendant may
have his sentence suspended under Article 192 of P. D. No.
603 or if he may be granted probation under the provisions of
P. D. No. 968 or to enforce his civil liability, if said liability has
been imposed in the criminal action. The youthful offender
concerned shall not be held under any provision of law to be
guilty of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by
reason of his failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact
related thereto in response to any inquiry made to him for any
purpose.

"Records" within the meaning of this sub-section shall include

those which may be in the files of the National Bureau of
Investigation and with any police department or government
agency which may have been involved in the case. (Art. 200,
P. D. No. 603)

Section 32. Applicability of ordinary rules. - The provisions

of the Rules of Court on deposition, conditional examination of
witnesses, and evidence shall be applied in a suppletory
character.
 Rule 131 Burden of Proof and
Presumptions
Section 1. Burden of proof. Burden of proof
is the duty of a party to present evidence on the
facts in issue necessary to establish his claim
or defense by the amount of evidence required
by law.
The burden of proof lies with the party who alleges the
existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or
defense of an action.
A mere allegation is not evidence, and he who alleges has
the burden of proving his allegation with the requisite
quantum of evidence. (Clado-Reyes v. Limpe, 557 SCRA
400)
In civil cases, a party who alleges a fact has the burden of
proving it.
Common carriers are presumed to have been at fault, or
to have acted negligently in case of death or injuries to
passengers. (Art. 1756, Civil Code) Thus, common
carriers have the burden of proof to show that they
observed the extraordinary diligence required by law. The
plaintiff has to show, however, the existence of a contract
and the breach of the contract of carriage. (Calalas v. CA,
332 SCRA 356)
Rules on burden of proof on debts:
1. The burden of proof that a debt was contracted lies
with the creditor-plaintiff.
2. However, the burden shifts to the debtor if he admits
the debt but defends by alleging that it has already
been paid, waived or otherwise extinguished. Even
where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the
general rule is that the burden rests on the debtor to
prove payment, rather than on the creditor to prove
non-payment.
3. Where the debtor introduces some evidence of
payment, the burden of going forward with the
evidence as distinct from the general burden of
proof shifts to the creditor, who is then under a duty
of producing some evidence to show non-payment.
The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the
affirmative of an issue, has the onus to prove his assertion
in order to obtain a favorable judgement.
In an eminent domain case, the local government that
seeks to expropriate private property has the burden of
proving that the elements for the valid exercise of the right
of eminent domain have been complied with. (JIL Christian
Foundation v. City of Pasig, 466 SCRA 235)
In termination cases, the burden of proof rests upon the
employer to show that the dismissal is for a valid and just
cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the
dismissal was not justified, and, therefore, illegal. (LBC
Domestic Franchise Co. v. Florido, 530 SCRA 607)
The employer has the burden of proving that the rate of
pay given to his employees is in accordance with the
minimum fixed by the law and that he had paid thirteenth
month pay, service incentive leave pay and other
monetary claims. (Saberola v. Suarez, 558 SCRA 135)
In labor cases, if doubt exists between the evidence
presented by the employer and employee, the scales of
justice must be tilted in favour of the latter. (Mayon Hotel &
Restaurant v. Adana, 458 SCRA 609)
In disbarment cases, the burden of proof is on the
complainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinary
powers, the case against the respondent must be
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.
(Nariega v. Sison, 125 SCRA 293)
Rules on burden of proof on accident insurance:
1. The insureds beneficiary has the burden of proof in
demonstrating that the cause of death is due to the
covered peril.
2. The burden shifts to the insurer to show any excepted
peril that may have been stipulated by the parties
once that fact is established.
In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the
respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the
complainant. The complainant must be able to show this
by substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence which
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, otherwise, the complaint must be dismissed.
(Adajar v. Develos, 475 SCRA 361)
The burden of proof is fixed by the pleadings. The claim of
the plaintiff, which he must prove, is spelled out in his
complaint. The defendants defenses, which he must
likewise prove, are to be found in his answer to the
complaint. The burdens of proof of both parties do not shift
during the course of the trial.
Burden of evidence the duty of a party to go forward with the
evidence to overthrow the prima facie evidence against him.
This may shift from one side to the other as the exigencies of
the trial require, and shifts with alternating frequency. BAR:
Distinguish Burden of Proof from Burden of Evidence. Ans:
Just their definitions.
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. The
following are instances of conclusive
presumptions:
(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; Estoppel in pais
(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. BAR
Presumption 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; an inference
of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are
permitted to draw from proof of other facts (mandatory; has a
definite legal effect)
Inference a factual conclusion that can rationally be draw
from other facts (not mandatory; no legal effect)
Kinds of presumptions:
1. Presumption of law an assumption which the law
requires to be made from a set of facts
2. Presumption of fact an assumption made from facts
without any direction or positive requirement of a law
Evidence is not required when a law or rule presumes the
truth of fact.
Examples of presumptions:
1. Constitutional presumption of innocence thus, the
accused need not present evidence to prove that he
is innocent; the burden of proof is upon the
prosecution
2. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have
acted negligently. (Art. 1756, Civil Code)
Conclusive presumption a presumption which becomes
irrebuttable upon the presentation of the evidence and any
evidence tending to rebut the presumption is not admissible;
inferences which the law makes so peremptory that it will not
allow them to be overturned by any contrary proof however
strong (BAR)
Disputable presumption a presumption which may be
contradicted or overcome by other evidence; it is satisfactory if
uncontradicted
The conclusive presumptions under Sec. 2 are based on
the doctrine of estoppels. Under this doctrine, the person
making the representation cannot claim benefit from the
wrong he himself committed. (Phil. Pryce Assurance Corp.
v. CA, 230 SCRA 164)
Estoppel an equitable principle rooted upon natural justice
which prevents persons from going back on their own acts and
representations, to the prejudice of others who have relied on
them
Essential elements of estoppel in pais in relation to the party
sought to be stopped:
1. Conduct amounting to false representation or
concealment of material facts; or at least calculated to
convey the impression that the facts are otherwise
than, and inconsistent with, those which the party
subsequently attempts to assert;
2. Intent, or at least, expectation, that this conduct shall
be acted upon by, or at least influence, the other
party; and
3. Knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.
Essential elements of estoppel in pais in relation to the party
invoking the estoppel in his favor:
1. Lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of
the truth as to the facts in question;
2. Reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or
statements of the party to be estopped;
3. Action or inaction based thereon of such character as
to change the position or status of the party claiming
the estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice.
The estoppel in Section 2(b) of Rule 131 applies even
though the lessor had no title at the time the relation of
lessor and lessee was created, and may be asserted not
only by the original lessor, but also by those who succeed
to his title. (Golden Horizon v. Sy Chuan, 365 SCRA 593)
This is so because the relation of lessor and lessee does
not depend on the formers title but on the agreement
between the parties, followed by the possession of the
premises by the lessee under such agreement. As long as
the latter remains in undisturbed possession, it is
immaterial whether the lessor has a valid title or any title
at all at the time the relationship was entered into.
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. The
following presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and
overcome by other evidence:
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or
wrong;
It is not enough to say that a girl would not expose herself
to the humiliation of a rape complaint unless the charge is
true. That is putting things too simply. For the prosecution
to succeed, it is also necessary to find that the
complainants story is by itself believable independently of
the presumption. (People v. Sandagon, 233 SCRA 108)
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an
unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary
consequences of his voluntary act;
Intent is a state of mind, and is hidden from the judicial
eye. Courts are left to evaluate the overt acts, and on their
basis, to form a conclusion as to the actors intentions.
The legal presumption drawn from human experience and
generally applied by the courts is that men intend the
natural consequences of their voluntary acts and that
unlawful acts are done with unlawful intent. (Buenaventura
v. CA, 303 SCRA 335)
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his
concerns;
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would
be adverse if produced;
The above presumption does not apply if:
1. The evidence is at the disposal of both parties;
2. The suppression was not wilful;
3. It is merely corroborative or cumulative; and
4. The suppression is an exercise of a privilege such as
it is covered by the privileged communication between
physician and patient.
(f) That money paid by one to another was
due to the latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another
belonged to the latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the
debtor has been paid;
(i) That prior rents or 35o-partners had been
paid when a receipt for the later one is
produced;
(j) 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;
(k) 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;
(l) That a person acting in a public office
was regularly appointed or elected to it;
(m) That official duty has been regularly
performed;
Respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the
presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed to evade responsibility or liability in a petition
for a writ of amparo. (Sec. 17 of Rule on the Writ of
Amparo)
The presumption of innocence of the accused prevails
over the presumption that law enforcement agents were in
the regular performance of their duty.
The presumption of regularity obtains only where nothing
in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law
enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of
official duty as provided for in law. Otherwise, where
official conduct in question is irregular on its face, an
adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such,
whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was
acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
(o) 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;
(p) That private transactions have been fair
and regular;
If mistake or fraud is alleged, and one of the parties is
unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not
understandable to him, the person enforcing the contract
must show that the terms thereof have been fully
explained to the former. (Cayabyab v. IAC, 232 SCRA 1)
The law presumes that there is fraud of creditors when:
1. There is alienation of property by gratuitous title by
the debtor who has not reserved sufficient property to
pay his debts contracted before such alienation; or
2. There is alienation of property by onerous title made
by a debtor against whom some judgement has been
rendered in any instance or some writ of attachment
has been issued.
(q) That the ordinary course of business has
been followed;
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration
for a contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given
or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable
instrument was made before the instrument
was overdue and at the place where the
instrument is dated;
(u) That a writing is truly dated;
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed
was received in the regular course of the
mail;
The facts to be proved in order to raise this presumption:
1. That the letter was properly addressed with postage
prepaid; and
2. That it was mailed.
 (w) That after an absence of seven (7) years,
it being unknown whether or not the
absentee still lives, he is considered dead
for all purposes, except for those of
succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of
opening his succession till after an absence of ten (10) years. If
he disappeared after the age of seventy-five (75) years, an
absence of five (5) 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:
(1) 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;
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in
armed hostilities, and has been missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other
circumstances and whose existence has not been known
for four years;
(4) 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. BAR
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief
that the thing acquiesced in was
conformable to the law or fact;
(y) That things have happened according to
the ordinary course of nature and ordinary
nature habits of life;
(z) That persons acting as 36o-partners have
entered into a contract of copartneship;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
(bb) 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.
(cc) 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.
(dd) 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:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist
continues as long as is usual with things of
the nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book,
purporting to be printed or published by
public authority, was so printed or
published;
(hh) 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;
(ii) 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;
(jj) That except for purposes of succession,
working conditions is impossible to comply with, given the
present state of scientific knowledge, the obligation to
present such impossible evidence must be deemed void
and considered as not being imposed.
Requisites for the presumption of an equitable mortgage to
apply:

when two persons perish in the same 1. That the parties entered into a contract denominated
calamity, such as wreck, battle, or as a sale; and
conflagration, and it is not shown who died 2. That their intention was to secure an existing debt by
way of mortgage.
first, and there are no particular
circumstances from which it can be inferred, If there is no relation of debtor-creditor, but by the terms of
the survivorship is determined from the the contract, one is merely given an option to buy real
probabilities resulting from the strength and property for a fixed amount and a fixed price, there is no
the age of the sexes, according to the equitable mortgage; the optionee is not bound to buy and
pay said real property. (JMA House v. Santa Monica
following rules:
Corp., 500 SCRA 526)

1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, If a person had in his possession a falsified document and
the older is deemed to have survived; he made use of it, taking advantage of it and profiting
thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the material
author of the falsification. (Maliwat v. CA, 256 SCRA 718)
2. If both were above the age sixty, the
younger is deemed to have survived;
Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or
illegitimacy. There is no presumption of
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above
legitimacy of a child born after three hundred
sixty, the former is deemed to have
days following the dissolution of the marriage
survived;
or the separation of the spouses. Whoever
alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty,
child must prove his allegation.
and the sex be different, the male is deemed
to have survived, if the sex be the same, the
older;

5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and

the other between those ages, the latter is
deemed to have survived.

(kk) 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.

A document acknowledged before a notary public enjoys

the presumption of regularity. To overcome this
presumption, there must be evidence presented that is
clear and convincing. Absent such evidence, the
presumption must be upheld.

Every statute has in its favor the presumption of

constitutionality.

There is no presumption of compensability of an ailment.

(GSIS v. Nonoy, 516 SCRA 330)

Where the requirement of proving by sufficient evidence

that the risk of contracting the ailment is increased by the
 Rule 132 Presentation of Evidence A witness admitted into the witness protection program
cannot refuse to testify or give evidence or produce books,
documents, records or writings necessary for the
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES prosecution of the offense or offenses for which he has
been admitted on the ground of the right against self-
Section 1. Examination to be done in open incrimination. (Sec. 14, R.A. No. 6981)
court. The examination of witnesses
presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in (5) Not to give an answer which will tend
open court, and under oath or affirmation. to degrade his reputation, unless it to be
Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the very fact at issue or to a fact from
the question calls for a different mode of which the fact in issue would be
answer, the answers of the witness shall be presumed. But a witness must answer to
given orally. (BAR) the fact of his previous final conviction
for an offense. (3a, 19a)
Section 2. Proceedings to be recorded. The
The court may order that the testimony of the child be
entire proceedings of a trial or hearing,
taken by live-link television if there is a substantial
including the questions propounded to a likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying
witness and his answers thereto, the in the presence of the accused, his counsel or the
statements made by the judge or any of the prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma should be of a
parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference to kind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness
of the testimony of the child.
the case, shall be recorded by means of
shorthand or stenotype or by other means of
Section 4. Order in the examination of an
recording found suitable by the court.
individual witness. The order in which the
individual witness may be examined is as
A transcript of the record of the proceedings
follows; (Kinds of examinations)
made by the official stenographer, stenotypist
or recorder and certified as correct by him shall
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
be deemed prima facie a correct statement of
such proceedings. (2a)
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;

Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness.

(c) Re-direct examination by the
A witness must answer questions, although
proponent;
his answer may tend to establish a claim
against him. However, it is the right of a (d) Re-cross-examination by the
witness: opponent.

(1) To be protected from irrelevant, Section 5. Direct examination. Direct

improper, or insulting questions, and examination is the examination-in-chief of a
from harsh or insulting demeanor; witness by the party presenting him on the
facts relevant to the issue. (5a)
(2) Not to be detained longer than the
interests of justice require; Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and
extent. Upon the termination of the direct
(3) Not to be examined except only as to
examination, the witness may be cross-
matters pertinent to the issue;
examined by the adverse party as to many
matters stated in the direct examination, or
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness
to subject him to a penalty for an offense
and freedom to test his accuracy and
unless otherwise provided by law; or
truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias,
or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts
The right against self-incrimination applies only to
testimonial evidence. Purely mechanical acts which bearing upon the issue.
neither requires discretion nor reasoning do not involve
testimonial compulsion. (Tijing v, CA, 354 SCRA 17) BAR
Two basic purposes of cross-examination:
1. To bring about facts favourable to the counsels client
not established by the direct examination;
2. To enable counsel to impeach or to impair the
credibility of the witness.
If the witness dies before his cross-examination is over,
his testimony on the direct may be stricken out only with
respect to the testimony not covered by the cross-
examination.
If the witness was not cross-examined because of causes
attributable to the cross-examining party and the witness
had always made himself available for cross-examination,
the direct testimony of the witness shall remain in the
record and cannot be ordered stricken off because the
cross-examiner is deemed to have waived the right to
cross-examine the witness. (De la Paz v. IAC, 154 SCRA
65)
Put here Section 1(d), Rule 115 and Section 12, Rule 132
Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose
and extent. After the cross-examination of
the witness has been concluded, he may be re-
examined by the party calling him, to explain or
supplement his answers given during the
cross-examination. On re-direct-examination,
questions on matters not dealt with during the
cross-examination, may be allowed by the court
in its discretion.
Section 8. Re-cross-examination. Upon the
conclusion of the re-direct examination, the
adverse party may re-cross-examine the
witness on matters stated in his re-direct
examination, and also on such other matters as
may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
Section 9. Recalling witness. After the
examination of a witness by both sides has
been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled
without leave of the court. The court will grant
or withhold leave in its discretion, as the
interests of justice may require.
Section 10. Leading and misleading
questions. A question which suggests to the
witness the answer which the examining party
desires is a leading question. It is not allowed,
except:
(a) On cross examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting
direct and intelligible answers from a
witness who is ignorant, or a child of
tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a
deaf-mute;
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party
or an officer, director, or managing agent
of a public or private corporation or of a
partnership or association which is an
adverse party.
A misleading question is one which assumes as
true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he has previously stated.
It is not allowed.
Examples of leading question in a direct examination: a) While
the plaintiff and the defendant were engaged in a conversation
on the date and time you mentioned, did you see the
defendant deliver P50,000 to the plaintiff?
b) While you were in the park with your children, the police
officers arrive to arrest you, is that true?
Example of misleading question:
You testified that you and the accused were in a car bound for
Baguio City. How fast were you driving? (Where in fact there
was no previous testimony from the witness that he was driving
the car.)
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's
witness. A witness may be impeached by the
party against whom he was called,
1. by contradictory evidence,
2. by evidence that his general reputation
for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or
3. by evidence that he has made at other
times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony,
but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts,
except that it may be shown by the examination
of the witness, or the record of the judgment,
that he has been convicted of an offense.
Impeachment basically a technique employed usually as part
of the cross-examination to discredit a witness by attacking his
credibility
Distinctions between character and reputation:
Character is made up of the things an individual
actually is and does, whereas reputation is what people think
an individual is and what they say about him. A witness cannot
be impeached by evidence of bad character, only of bad
reputation.
Section 12. Party may not impeach his own
witness. Except with respect to witnesses
referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section
10, the party producing a witness is not allowed
to impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or
hostile only if so declared by the court upon
adequate showing of his adverse interest,
unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having
misled the party into calling him to the witness
stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or
the witness who is an adverse party, may be
impeached by the party presenting him in all
respects as if he had been called by the adverse
party, except by evidence of his bad character.
He may also be impeached and cross-examined
by the adverse party, but such cross-
examination must only be on the subject matter
of his examination-in-chief.
Section 13. How witness impeached by
evidence of inconsistent statements. Before
a witness can be impeached by evidence that
he has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his present testimony,
1. the statements must be related to him,
with the circumstances of the times and
places and the persons present, and
2. he must be asked whether he made such
statements, and if so, allowed to explain
them. Laying the predicate
If the statements be in writing they must be
shown to the witness before any question is put
to him concerning them.
Section 14. Evidence of good character of
witness. Evidence of the good character of a
witness is not admissible until such character
has been impeached.
This rule does not apply if the witness is the accused. The
accused in a criminal case may prove his good moral
character relevant to the offense charged even before his
character is attacked. See Sec. 51(a)(1), Rule 130.
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of
witnesses. On any trial or hearing, the judge
may exclude from the court any witness not at
the time under examination, so that he may not
hear the testimony of other witnesses. The
judge may also cause witnesses to be kept
separate and to be prevented from conversing
with one another until all shall have been
examined.
Section 16. When witness may refer to
memorandum. A witness may be allowed to
refresh his memory respecting a fact, by
anything written or recorded by himself or
under his direction at the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any
other time when the fact was fresh in his
memory and knew that the same was correctly
written or recorded; but in such case the writing
or record must be produced and may be
inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he
chooses, cross examine the witness upon it,
and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness
may testify from such writing or record, though
he retain no recollection of the particular facts,
if he is able to swear that the writing or record
correctly stated the transaction when made; but
such evidence must be received with caution.
(10a)
Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or
record given in evidence, the remainder, the
remainder admissible. When part of an act,
declaration, conversation, writing or record is
given in evidence by one party, the whole of the
same subject may be inquired into by the other,
and when a detached act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record is given in
evidence, any other act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence.
(11a)
Section 18. Right to respect writing shown to
witness. Whenever a writing is shown to a
witness, it may be inspected by the adverse
party.
 B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS
Authentication the preliminary step in showing
admissibility of an evidence BAR
Section 19. Classes of Documents. For the
purpose of their presentation in evidence,
documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of
the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a
notary public (or other officers authorized to
administer oaths) except last wills and
testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the
Philippines, of private documents
required by law to the entered therein.
All other writings are private. (20a)
In the case of a public record of a private document
required by law to be entered in a public record, the public
document does not refer to the private document itself but
the public record of that private document. (BAR)
A public document does not require the authentication
imposed upon a private document.
Section 20. Proof of private document.
Before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved
either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document
executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of
the signature or handwriting of the
maker.
Any other private document need only be
identified as that which it is claimed to be. (21a)
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of
private document not necessary. Where a
private document is more than thirty years old,
is produced from the custody in which it would
naturally be found if genuine, and is
unblemished by any alterations or
the circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence
of its authenticity need be given. (BAR) Ancient
document
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting
proved. The handwriting of a person may be
proved by any witness who believes it to be the
handwriting of such person because he has
seen the person write, or has seen writing
purporting to be his upon which the witness
has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person. Evidence respecting the handwriting
may also be given by a comparison, made by
the witness or the court, with writings admitted
or treated as genuine by the party against
whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (23a)
Section 23. Public documents as evidence.
Documents consisting of entries in public
records made in the performance of a duty by a
public officer are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated. All other public documents
are evidence, even against a third person, of the
fact which gave rise to their execution and of
the date of the latter. (24a)
Section 24. Proof of official record. The
record of public documents referred to in
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible
for any purpose, may be evidenced
1. by an official publication thereof or
2. by a copy attested by the officer having
the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy, and
3. accompanied, if the record is not kept in
the Philippines, with a certificate that
such officer has the custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in
foreign country, 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. (25a)
 A notary public in a foreign country is not one of those who
can issue the certificate mention in Sec. 24 of Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court.
Section 25. What attestation of copy must
state. Whenever a copy of a document or
record is attested for the purpose of evidence,
the attestation must state, in substance, that
the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a
specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
attestation must be under the official seal of the
attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the
clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of
such court. (26a)
Section 26. Irremovability of public record.
Any public record, an official copy of which is
admissible in evidence, must not be removed
from the office in which it is kept, except upon
order of a court where the inspection of the
record is essential to the just determination of a
pending case. (27a)
Section 27. Public record of a private
document. An authorized public record of a
private document may be proved:
1. by the original record, or
2. by a copy thereof, attested by the legal
custodian of the record, with an
appropriate certificate that such officer
has the custody. (28a)
Section 28. Proof of lack of record. A written
statement signed by an officer having the
custody of an official record or by his deputy
that after diligent search no record or entry of a
specified tenor is found to exist in the records
of his office, accompanied by a certificate as
above provided, is admissible as evidence that
the records of his office contain no such record
or entry. (29)
Section 29. How judicial record impeached.
Any judicial record may be impeached by
evidence of:
a) want of jurisdiction in the court or
judicial officer,
b) collusion between the parties, or
c) fraud in the party offering the record, in
respect to the proceedings. (30a)
Section 30. Proof of notarial documents.
Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved
and certified as provided by law, may be
presented in evidence without further proof, the
certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie
evidence of the execution of the instrument or
document involved. (31a) Does not apply to last wills
and testaments. Every will must be probated.
Section 31. Alteration in document, how to
explain. The party producing a document as
genuine which has been altered and appears to
have been altered after its execution, in a part
material to the question in dispute, must
account for the alteration. He may show that the
alteration was made by another, without his
concurrence, or was made with the consent of
the parties affected by it, or was otherwise
properly or innocent made, or that the alteration
did not change the meaning or language of the
instrument. If he fails to do that, the document
shall not be admissible in evidence. (32a)
Section 32. Seal. There shall be no difference
between sealed and unsealed private
documents insofar as their admissibility as
evidence is concerned. (33a)
Section 33. Documentary evidence in an
unofficial language. Documents written in an
unofficial language shall not be admitted as
evidence, unless accompanied with a
translation into English or Filipino. To avoid
interruption of proceedings, parties or their
attorneys are directed to have such translation
prepared before trial. (34a)
Church registries of births, marriages, and deaths made
subsequent to the promulgation of General Orders No. 68,
promulgated on December 18, 1889, and the passage of
Act No. 190, enacted on August 7, 1901, are no longer
public writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized public
officials. They are private writings and their authenticity
must therefore be proved, as are all other private writings
in accordance with the Rules of Evidence. (Llemos v.
Llemos, 513 SCRA 128) BAR
 C. OFFER AND OBJECTION
Section 34. Offer of evidence. The court shall
consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered. The nature or substance of the
evidence, and the purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified. (35)
To allow parties to attach any document to their pleadings
and then expect the court to consider it evidence, even
without formal offer and admission, may draw unwarranted
consequences. Opposing parties will be deprived of their
chance to examine the document and to object to its
admissibility. On the other hand, the appellate court will
have difficulty reviewing documents not previously
scrutinized by the court below. (Ong v. CA, 301 SCRA
387)
When formal offer of evidence is not required (BAR):
1. In a summary proceeding, because it is a proceeding
where there is no full-blown trial;
2. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial notice
of;
3. Documents, affidavits and depositions used in
rendering a summary judgement;
4. Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi-
judicial or administrative cases;
5. Lost objects previously marked, identified, described
in the record, and testified to by witnesses who had
been subjects of cross-examination in respect to said
objects.
When evidence was not formally offered, the failure to
object to the omission and the cross-examination of the
witness by the adverse party, taken together, constitute a
waiver of the defect. (People v. Libnao, 395 SCRA 407)
The court shall consider the evidence solely for the
purpose for which it is offered, not for any other purpose.
(Spouses Ragudo v. Fabella Estate Tenants, 466 SCRA
136)
Section 35. When to make offer. As regards
the testimony of a witness, the offer must be
made at the time the witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be
offered after the presentation of a party's
testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done
orally unless allowed by the court to be done in
writing. (n)
Section 36. Objection. Objection to evidence
offered orally must be made immediately after
the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the
course of the oral examination of a witness
shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor
shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected
to within three (3) days after notice of the
unless a different period is allowed by the
court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections
must be specified. (36a)
A party is not deemed to have waived objection to
admissibility of documents by his failure to object to the
same when they were marked, identified and then
introduced during the trial, because objection to
documentary evidence must be made at the time it is
formally offered and not earlier. (Macasiray v. People, 291
SCRA 154)
The mere fact that a document is marked as an exhibit
does not mean that it has thereby already been offered as
part of the evidence of a party. (People v. Gecomo, 254
SCRA 82)
Where the accused fails to object to the admissibility of
certain items during their formal offer, he is deemed to
have waived his right against their admissibility. (People v.
Diaz, 271 SCRA 504)
Purposes of objections:
1. To keep out inadmissible evidence that would cause
harm to a clients cause;
2. To protect the record;
3. To protect a witness from being embarrassed on the
stand or from being harassed by the adverse counsel;
4. To expose the adversarys unfair tactics like his
consistently asking obvious leading questions;
5. To give the trial court an opportunity to correct its own
errors and, at the same time, warn the court that a
ruling adverse to the objector may supply a reason to
invoke a higher courts appellate jurisdiction; and
6. To avoid a waiver of the inadmissibility of an
otherwise inadmissible evidence.
Two kinds of objections:
1. Formal one directed against the alleged defect in
the formulation of the question
a. Ambiguous questions
b. Leading and misleading questions
c. Repetitious questions;
d. Multiple questions
e. Argumentative questions
2. Substantive one made and directed against the very
nature of the evidence, i.e., it is inadmissible either
because it is irrelevant or incompetent or both
a. Parol
b. Not the best evidence
c. Hearsay
d. Privileged communication
e. Not authenticated
f. Opinion
g. Res inter alios acta
 the objection and order the answer given to be
The objection should be made timely. It must be made at stricken off the record.
the earliest opportunity.

The objection to evidence cannot be made for the first
time on appeal, both because the party who has failed to
timely object becomes estopped from raising the objection
afterwards; and because to assail the judgement of the
lower court upon a cause as to which the lower court had
no opportunity to pass upon and rule is contrary to basic
fairness and procedural orderliness. (LBP v. Nable, 675
SCRA 233)
Failure to object to an evidence is a waiver of the
objection. The right to object is merely a privilege which
the party may waive. For instance, even assuming ex
gratia argument that certain documents are inadmissible
for being hearsay, the same may be admitted to on
account of failure to object thereto. (Manliclic v. Calaunan,
512 SCRA 642)
The waiver of the objection is only a waiver to the
objections to the evidences admissibility, that is, to its
relevance and competence.
On proper motion, the court may also order the
striking out of answers which are incompetent,
irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (n)
When a motion to strike an answer may be availed of:
1. When the answer is premature;
2. When the answer of the witness is irrelevant;
3. When the answer is unresponsive;
4. When the witness becomes unavailable for cross-
examination through no fault of the cross-examining
party; or
5. When the testimony was allowed conditionally and the
condition for its admissibility was not fulfilled.
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. If
documents or things offered in evidence are
excluded by the court, the offeror may have the
same attached to or made part of the record.

Section 37. When repetition of objection
unnecessary. When it becomes reasonably
apparent in the course of the examination of a
witness that the question being propounded are
of the same class as those to which objection
has been made, whether such objection was
sustained or overruled, it shall not be
necessary to repeat the objection, it being
sufficient for the adverse party to record his
continuing objection to such class of
questions. (37a)
If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may
state for the record the name and other
personal circumstances of the witness and the
substance of the proposed testimony. Offer of
proof
The Rules of Court does not prohibit a party from
requesting the court to allow it to present additional
evidence even after it has rested its case. (Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, 662 SCRA 152)

Section 38. Ruling. The ruling of the court

must be given immediately after the objection is
made, unless the court desires to take a
reasonable time to inform itself on the question
presented; but the ruling shall always be made
during the trial and at such time as will give the
party against whom it is made an opportunity to
meet the situation presented by the ruling.

The reason for sustaining or overruling an

objection need not be stated. However, if the
objection is based on two or more grounds, a
ruling sustaining the objection on one or some
of them must specify the ground or grounds
relied upon. (38a)

Section 39. Striking out answer. Should a

witness answer the question before the adverse
party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection to the same, and such objection is
found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain
 Rule 133 Weight and Sufficiency of
Evidence
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. Medoza, 450 SCRA 328)
A denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-
culpability; otherwise, such denial is a purely self-serving
and is with no evidentiary value.
A community tax receipt is not credible and reliable in
proving the identity of a person who wishes to have his
document notarized. (Baylon v. Almo, 555 SCRA 248)
It is settled doctrine that the defense of alibi is inherently
weak and must be rejected when the identity of the
accused is satisfactorily and categorically established by
the eyewitnesses to the offense, especially when such
eyewitnesses have no ill-motive to testify falsely. (People
v. Viojela, G.R. No. 177140)
For an alibi to prevail, the defense must establish by
positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically
impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of
the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely
that the accused was somewhere else. (People v. Vargas,
413 SCRA 269) BAR
For the defense of frame-up by police officers to prosper,
the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence
to overcome the presumption that government officials
have performed their duties in a regular and proper
manner. Thus, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely
impute such a serious crime against the accused, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty shall prevail. (People v. Almodiel, G.R. No. 200951)
There is no law or principle holding that non-flight per se is
proof, let alone conclusive proof, of innocence. Much like
the defense of alibi, the defense of non-flight cannot
prevail against the weight of positive identification of the
appellants. (People v. Dacibar, 325 SCRA 725)
Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt and must not
always be attributed to ones consciousness of guilt. Flight
alone is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other
circumstances because flight alone is inherently
ambiguous. (Valdez v. People, 538 SCRA 611) Flight,
however, is indicative of guilt.
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:
1. all the facts and circumstances of the
case,
2. the witnesses' manner of testifying, their
intelligence,
3. their means and opportunity of knowing
the facts to which there are testifying,
4. the nature of the facts to which they
testify,
5. the probability or improbability of their
testimony,
6. their interest or want of interest, and also
7. their personal credibility so far as the
same may legitimately appear upon the
trial.
8. The court may also consider the number
of witnesses, though the preponderance
is not necessarily with the greater
number.
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence
adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater
weight than that of the other; evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief that that which is
offered in opposition thereto
To persuade by the preponderance of evidence is not to
take the evidence quantitatively but qualitatively.
(McDonald v. Union Pacific, 109 Utah 493)
Equipoise rule or equiponderance doctrine in case of a
situation where evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, or
there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates (or
weighs more heavily), the decision should be against the party
with the burden of proof (BAR)
In a criminal case, the equipoise rule provides that where
the evidence is evenly balanced, the constitutional
presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favour of the
accused. (People v. Erquiza, 571 SCRA 634)
In labor cases, if doubt exists between the evidence
presented by the employer and employee, scales of
justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. (Mayon Hotel &
Restaurant v. Adana, 458 SCRA 609)
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 as,
excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
When a prima facie case is established by the prosecution
in a criminal case, the burden of proof does not shift to the
defense. It remains throughout the trial with the party upon
whom it is imposed the prosecution. It is the burden of
 evidence which shifts from party to party depending upon
the exigencies of the case in the course of trial. This
burden of going forward with the evidence is met by
evidence which balances that introduced by the
prosecution. Then the burden shifts back. (People v.
Santiago, 420 SCRA 248)
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the
conviction of the accused must rest, not on the weakness
of the defense, but on the strength of the prosecution. The
burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, not on the accused to prove his
innocence. (Basilio v. People, 570 SCRA 533)
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.
Corpus delicti the body of a crime or the offense; the actual
commission of the crime and someone criminally responsible
therefor
Elements of corpus delicti:
1. Proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and
2. Some persons criminal responsibility for the act.
For an accused be convicted of illegal possession of drugs,
it is necessary that the following elements be established:
1. The accused is in possession of an item or object
which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
2. Such possession is not authorized by law;
3. The accused freely and consciously possessed the
said drug.
Elements of corpus delicti in theft:
1. That the property was lost by the owner; and
2. That it was lost by felonious taking.
The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of
firearms is the accuseds lack of license or permit to
possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself is not
prohibited by law. (Sayco v. People, 547 SCRA 368)
It is a rule now established that the elements of death in
the corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial
evidence. To establish the corpus delicti by circumstantial
evidence, facts are admissible to show the impossibility of
rescue, as at sea, the existence and extent of wounds,
and deceaseds condition of health; and that the wound
was sufficient to cause death and that the party was
reported dead. Death is sufficiently shown by the
testimony of a witness that he saw the flash and heard the
report, and that the deceased fell to the ground, declaring
that he was shot and that the accused shot him. (People v.
Sasota, 91 Phil. 111)
In a case of murder or homicide, it is not necessary to
recover the body of the victim or show where it can be
found. It is enough that the death and the criminal agency
causing death is proven. (People v. Sasota, supra)
Extrajudicial confession distinguished from judicial
confessions:
An extrajudicial confession may be given in evidence
against the confessant but not against his co-accused as
they are deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine him.
A judicial confession is admissible against the declarants
co-accused since the latter are afforded opportunity to
cross-examine the former.
Requisites for the admissibility of an extrajudicial confession in
custodial investigation (R.A. No. 7438):
1. It must be voluntary;
2. It shall be in writing and signed by the person
arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation;
3. It must be signed in the presence of his counsel or in
the latters absence, upon a valid waiver;
4. In the event of a valid waiver, it must be signed in the
presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and
sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the
municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or
minister of the gospel chosen by him. BAR (Pero para
maka convict, kailangan ug evidence of corpus
delicti.)
The above rights refer to an extrajudicial confession of a
person arrested, detained or is under custodial
investigation because a confession made by the accused
before he is placed under custodial investigation need not
comply with the above.
Custodial investigation has been described as one which
involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way. It is only after the investigation ceases to
be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to
focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into
custody, and the police carries out a process of
interrogatories that lend itself to eliciting incriminating
statements, that the rule begins to operate. (Aquino v.
Paiste, 555 SCRA 255)
Custodial investigation includes the practice of issuing an
invitation to a person who is investigated in connection
with an offense he is suspected to have committed,
without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for
any violation of law. (Sec. 2[f], R.A. No. 7438)
Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or
under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and
signed by such person in the presence of his counsel;
otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no
effect. (Sec. 2[e], R.A. No. 7438)
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.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence must
exclude each and every hypothesis consistent with
innocence. Hence, if the totality of the circumstance
eliminates beyond reasonable doubt the possibility of
innocence, conviction is proper. (Mallari v. People, 446
SCRA 74)
The circumstances proven must constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion
that points to the accused to the exclusion of all others as
the guilty person. (People v. Bernal, 388 SCRA 211)
Direct evidence is not indispensable to prove a crime
charged. It may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
(People v. Darilay, 421 SCRA 45)
Basic guidelines in the appreciation of circumstantial evidence:
1. It should be acted upon with caution;
2. All the essential facts must be consistent with the
hypothesis of guilt;
3. The facts must exclude every other theory but that of
guilt; and
4. The facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of
the accused as to convince the judge beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who
committed the offense.
Where the evidence admits two interpretations, one of
which is consistent with guilt and the other with innocence,
the accused must be acquitted. (People v. Corpuz, 412
SCRA 479)
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.
Administrative proceedings against judges are highly
penal in character and are to be governed by the rules
applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof
required to support administrative charges against judges
(or judicial employees) should, thus, be more than
substantial and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(Duduaco v. Laquindanum, 466 SCRA 428)
However, where the charge against a judge is only
unbecoming conduct and/or harassment, substantial
evidence is sufficient. (Gutierrez v. Belen, 555 SCRA 424)
Distinctions between preponderance of evidence and
substantial evidence:
1. Preponderance of evidence applies to civil cases,
while substantial evidence applies to cases filed
before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies;
2. Preponderance of evidence requires that the
evidence be more convincing and more credible than
the one offered by the adverse party, while substantial
evidence requires that in order to establish a fact, the
evidence should constitute that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
In a petition for a writ of amparo, the parties shall establish
their clams by substantial evidence. (Sec. 17, The Rule on
the Writ of Amparo)
An absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an
administrative prosecution, or vice versa. The findings and
conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on
the other. (Paredes v. CA, 528 SCRA 577)
Clear and convincing evidence evidence which produces in
the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to
allegations sought to be established; this evidence is
intermediate, being more than preponderance, but not to the
extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable
doubt as in criminal cases BAR
Some cases where clear and convincing evidence is applied:
1. To overturn the prima facie presumption of regularity
of a notarized instrument, clear and convincing
evidence is required;
2. Bad faith has to be established by the claimant with
clear and convincing evidence;
3. There should be clear and convincing evidence to
prove the charge of bias and partiality against a
judge;
4. Fraud is never presumed but must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of
evidence not even being adequate;
5. The established legal principle in actions for
annulment or reconveyance of title is that a party
seeking it should establish not merely by a
preponderance of evidence, but by clear and
convincing evidence that the land sought to be
reconveyed is his;
6. It well-settled doctrine that when an accused invoked
self-defense, the onus is on him to establish by clear
and convincing evidence his justification for the killing;
7. For the defense of frame-up by police officers to
prosper, the defense must adduce clear and
convincing evidence to overcome the presumption
that government officials have performed their duties
in a regular and proper manner;
8. For an alibi (or denial) to prevail, the defense must
establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was
physically impossible for the accused to have been at
the scene of the crime at the time of its commission,
 and not merely that the accused was somewhere
else;
9. To overturn the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties, clear and convincing
evidence that the police officers did not properly
perform their duty or that they were inspired by an
improper motive;
10. It is doctrinally settled that a person who seeks
confirmation of an imperfect or incomplete title to a
piece of land on the basis of possession by himself
and his predecessor-in-interest shoulders the burden
of proving by clear and convincing evidence,
compliance with the requirements of the applicable
law.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt Clear and
convincing evidence Preponderance of evidence
Substantial evidence
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. (6)
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.
RULES OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE A.M. No.
01-7-01-SC
Rule 1
COVERAGE
Section 1. Scope. Unless otherwise provided herein, these
Rules shall apply whenever an electronic document or
electronic data message, as defined in Rule 2 hereof, is
offered or used in evidence.
Section 2. Cases covered. These Rules shall apply to the
criminal and civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-
judicial and administrative cases.
Section 3. Application of other rules on evidence. In all
matters not specifically covered by these Rules, the Rules of
Court and pertinent provisions of statutes containing rules on
evidence shall apply.
Rule 2
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONSTRUCTION
Section 1. Definition of terms. For purposes of these Rules,
the following terms are defined, as follows:
(a) "Asymmetric or public cryptosystem" means a
system capable of generating a secure key pair,
consisting of a private key for creating a digital
signature, and a public key for verifying the digital
signature.
(b) "Business records" include records of any
business, institution, association, profession,
occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not
conducted for profit, or for legitimate or illegitimate
purposes.
(c) "Certificate" means an electronic document issued
to support a digital signature which purports to
confirm the identity or other significant characteristics
of the person who holds a particular key pair.
(d) "Computer" refers to any single or interconnected
device or apparatus, which, by electronic, electro-
mechanical or magnetic impulse, or by other means
with the same function, can receive, record, transmit,
store, process, correlate, analyze, project, retrieve
and/or produce information, data, text, graphics,
figures, voice, video, symbols or other modes of
expression or perform any one or more of these
functions.
(e) "Digital signature" refers to an electronic signature
consisting of a transformation of an electronic
document or an electronic data message using an
asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person
having the initial untransformed electronic document
and the signer's public key can accurately determine:
i. whether the transformation was created
using the private key that corresponds to the
signer's public key; and
ii. whether the initial electronic document had
been altered after the transformation was
made.
(f) "Digitally signed" refers to an electronic document
or electronic data message bearing a digital signature
verified by the public key listed in a certificate.
(g) "Electronic data message" refers to information
generated, sent, received or stored by electronic,
optical or similar means.
(h) "Electronic document" refers to information or the
representation of information, data, figures, symbols
or other modes of written expression, described or
however represented, by which a right is established
or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may
be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded,
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically. It includes digitally signed documents
and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other
means, which accurately reflects the electronic data
message or electronic document. For purposes of
 these Rules, the term "electronic document" may be
used interchangeably with "electronic data message".
(i) "Electronic key" refers to a secret code which
secures and defends sensitive information that
crosses over public channels into a form decipherable
only with a matching electronic key.
(j) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark,
characteristic and/or sound in electronic form,
representing the identity of a person and attached to
or logically associated with the electronic data
message or electronic document or any methodology
or procedure employed or adopted by a person and
executed or adopted by such person with the intention
of authenticating, signing or approving an electronic
data message or electronic document. For purposes
of these Rules, an electronic signature includes digital
signatures.
(k) "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to
telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom
sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other
electronic forms of communication the evidence of
which is not recorded or retained.
(l) "Information and communication system" refers to
a system for generating, sending, receiving, storing or
otherwise processing electronic data messages or
electronic documents and includes the computer
system or other similar devices by or in which data
are recorded or stored and any procedure related to
the recording or storage of electronic data messages
or electronic documents.
(m) "Key pair" in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers
to the private key and its mathematically related
public key such that the latter can verify the digital
signature that the former creates.
(n) "Private key" refers to the key of a key pair used to
create a digital signature.
(o) "Public key" refers to the key of a key pair used to
verify a digital signature.
Section 2. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally
construed to assist the parties in obtaining a just, expeditious,
and inexpensive determination of cases.
The interpretation of these Rules shall also take into
consideration the international origin of Republic Act No. 8792,
otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act.
Rule 3
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
Section 1. Electronic documents as functional equivalent of
paper-based documents. Whenever a rule of evidence refers
to the term writing, document, record, instrument,
memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be
deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these
Rules.
Section 2. Admissibility. An electronic document is
admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on
admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws
and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules.
Section 3. Privileged communication. The confidential
character of a privileged communication is not lost solely on
the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document.
Rule 4
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Section 1. Original of an electronic document. An electronic
document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original
document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or
output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the
data accurately.
Section 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. When a
document is in two or more copies executed at or about the
same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced
by the same impression as the original, or from the same
matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which
accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates
shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not
be admissible to the same extent as the original if:
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity
of the original; or
(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or
inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original.
Rule 5
AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
Section 1. Burden of proving authenticity. The person
seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal
proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the
manner provided in this Rule.
Section 2. Manner of authentication. Before any private
electronic document offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the
following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the
person purported to have signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security
procedures or devices as may be authorized by the
Supreme Court or by law for authentication of
electronic documents were applied to the document;
or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and
reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
Section 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. A
document electronically notarized in accordance with the rules
promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as a
public document and proved as a notarial document under the
Rules of Court.
Rule 6
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES
Section 1. Electronic signature. An electronic signature or a
digital signature authenticated in the manner prescribed
hereunder is admissible in evidence as the functional
equivalent of the signature of a person on a written document.
Section 2. Authentication of electronic signatures. An
electronic signature may be authenticated in any of the
following manner:
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized
to establish a digital signature and verify the same;
(b) By any other means provided by law; or
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as
establishing the genuineness of the electronic
signature.
Section 3. Disputable presumptions relating to electronic
signatures. Upon the authentication of an electronic
signature, it shall be presumed that:
(a) The electronic signature is that of the person to
whom it correlates;
(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that
person with the intention of authenticating or
approving the electronic document to which it is
related or to indicate such person's consent to the
transaction embodied therein; and
(c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify
the electronic signature operated without error or
fault.
Section 4. Disputable presumptions relating to digital
signatures. Upon the authentication of a digital signature, it
shall be presumed, in addition to those mentioned in the
immediately preceding section, that:
(a) The information contained in a certificate is
correct;
(b) The digital signature was created during the
operational period of a certificate;
(c) No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or
revocable;
(d) The message associated with a digital signature
has not been altered from the time it was signed; and,
(e) A certificate had been issued by the certification
authority indicated therein.
Rule 7
EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
Section 1. Factors for assessing evidentiary weight. In
assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic document,
the following factors may be considered:
(a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it
was generated, stored or communicated, including
but not limited to input and output procedures,
controls, tests and checks for accuracy and reliability
of the electronic data message or document, in the
light of all the circumstances as well as any relevant
agreement;
(b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator
was identified;
(c) The integrity of the information and communication
system in which it is recorded or stored, including but
not limited to the hardware and computer programs or
software used as well as programming errors;
(d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who
made the entry with the communication and
information system;
(e) The nature and quality of the information which
went into the communication and information system
upon which the electronic data message or electronic
document was based; or
(f) Other factors which the court may consider as
affecting the accuracy or integrity of the electronic
document or electronic data message.
Section 2. Integrity of an information and communication
system. In any dispute involving the integrity of the
information and communication system in which an electronic
document or electronic data message is recorded or stored,
the court may consider, among others, the following factors:
(a) Whether the information and communication
system or other similar device was operated in a
manner that did not affect the integrity of the
electronic document, and there are no other
reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the
information and communication system;
(b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or
stored by a party to the proceedings with interest
adverse to that of the party using it; or
(c) Whether the electronic document was recorded or
stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by
a person who is not a party to the proceedings and
who did not act under the control of the party using it.
Rule 8
BUSINESS RECORDS AS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY
RULE
Section 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. A
memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts,
events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic,
optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from
transmission or supply of information by a person with
knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct
of a business activity, and such was the regular practice to
make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by
electronic, optical or similar means, all of which are shown by
the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is
excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
Section 2. Overcoming the presumption. The presumption
provided for in Section 1 of this Rule may be overcome by
evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information
or the method or circumstances of the preparation,
transmission or storage thereof.
recording or by some other person competent to testify on the
accuracy thereof.
Section 2. Ephemeral electronic communications.
Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the
testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has
personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of
such witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted.
A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral
electronic communication shall be covered by the immediately
preceding section.

Rule 9 If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in

METHOD OF PROOF
Section 1. Affidavit evidence. All matters relating to the
admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic document
may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct
personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic
records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence
of the affiant to testify on the matters contained therein.
Section 2. Cross-examination of deponent. The affiant shall
be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit in open court
and may be cross-examined as a matter of right by the
adverse party.
an electronic document, then the provisions of Rule 5 shall
apply.
The terms electronic data message and electronic
document, as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act
of 200, do not include a facsimile (fax) transmission and
cannot be considered as electronic evidence. (MCC
Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssanyong Corp., 536 SCRA 408)
BAR

Rule 10
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Section 1. Electronic testimony. After summarily hearing the

parties pursuant to Rule 9 of these Rules, the court may
authorize the presentation of testimonial evidence by electronic
means. Before so authorizing, the court shall determine the
necessity for such presentation and prescribe terms and
conditions as may be necessary under the circumstances,
including the protection of the rights of the parties and
witnesses concerned.

Section 2. Transcript of electronic testimony. When

examination of a witness is done electronically, the entire
proceedings, including the questions and answers, shall be
transcribed by a stenographer, stenotypist or other recorder
authorized for the purpose, who shall certify as correct the
transcript done by him. The transcript should reflect the fact
that the proceedings, either in whole or in part, had been
electronically recorded.

Section 3. Storage of electronic evidence. The electronic

evidence and recording thereof as well as the stenographic
notes shall form part of the record of the case. Such transcript
and recording shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such
proceedings.

Rule 11
AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC, VIDEO, AND EPHEMERAL
EVIDENCE

Section 1. Audio, video and similar evidence. Audio,

photographic and video evidence of events, acts or
transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be shown,
presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified,
explained or authenticated by the person who made the