OUTLINE

EVIDENCE
Centro Escolar University
School of Law and Jurisprudence
Second Semester, SY 2016-2017
Monday and Friday
5:30 P.M. 7:30 P.M.
(Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra)

Read:

I.

(1) Rule on Examination of Child Witness (A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC)

Applicability: Unless otherwise provided, the 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 (Sec. 1).

Meaning of child witness -- A child witness is any person who at the time of
giving testimony is below the age of 18 years. In child abuse cases, a child
includes one over 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 (Sec.
4[a]).

Competency of a child witness -- Every child is presumed qualified to be a

witness. However, the court shall conduct a competency examination of a
child, motu propio or on motion of a party, when it finds that substantial doubt
exists regarding the stability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate,
distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in
court (Sec. 6).

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 (Sec. 6[a]).

Burden of proof -- To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child,

the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his competence (Sec. 6[b]).

Persons allowed at competency examination Only the following are allowed to

attend a competency examination:
(a) The judge and necessary court personnel;
(b) The counsel for the parties;
(c) The guardian ad litem;
(d) One or more support persons for the child; and
(e) The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be fully
evaluated in his absence (Sec. 6[c]).
 2

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 (Sec. 6[d]).

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 (Sec. 6[e]).

Continuing duty to assess competence -- The court has the duty of continuously
assessing the competence of the child throughout his testimony (Sec. 6[f]).

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 (Sec. 8).

Live-link TV testimony of a child 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 litem 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 propio 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:
the age and level of development of the child;
 3

his physical and mental health, including any mental or physical

disability;
any physical, emotional, or psychological injury experienced by him;
the nature of the alleged abuse;
any threats against the child;
his relationship with the accused or adverse party;
his reaction to any prior prior encounters with the accused in court or
elsewhere;
his reaction prior to trial when the topic of testifying was discussed
with him by parents or professionals;
specific symptoms of stress exhibited by the child in the days prior to
testifying;
testimony of expert or lay witnesses;
the custodial situation of the child and the attitude of the members of
his family regarding the events about which he will testify; and
other relevant factors, such as court atmosphere and formalities of court
procedure.

(f) The 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.

(g) If the court orders the taking of testimony by live-link television:

(i) 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;
(ii) 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.
(iii)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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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).

Videotaped deposition of a child witness

(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
 4

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 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:
The prosecutor;
The defense counsel;
The guardian ad litem;
The accused, subject to subsection (e);
Other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be
necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child;
One or both of his support persons, the facilitator and interpreter, if
any;
The court stenographer; and
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
 5

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 (Sec. 27).

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:
Whether there is a motive to lie;
The general character of the declarant child;
Whether more than one person heard the statement;
Whether the statement was spontaneous;
The timing of the statement and the relationship between the
declarant child and witness;
Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the
declarant child;
The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote;
and
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:
Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental
illness, or will be exposed to sever psychological injury; or
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 (Sec. 28).

Sexual abuse shield rule

 6

Inadmissible evidence: The following evidence is not admissible in any

criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse:
(a) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other
sexual behavior; and
(b) Evidence offered to prove the sexual pre-disposition of the alleged
victim.

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:
(a) File a written motion at least fifteen (5) 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
(b) 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 protected
order set forth in section 31(b). The child shall not be required to testify at
the hearing in chambers except with his consent (Sec. 30).

Protective Orders
(a) 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:
Tapes may be viewed only by parties, their their counsel, their expert
witness, and the guardian ad litem.
No tape, or any portion thereof, shall be divulged by any person
mentioned in subsection (a) to any other person, except as necessary for
the trial.
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.
Each of the tape cassettes and transcripts thereof made available to the
parties, their counsel, and respective agents shall bear a cautionary
notice that the object or document and the contents thereof are subject
to a protective order issued by the court.
No tape shall be given, loaned, sold, or shown to any person except as
ordered by the court.
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.
This protective order shall remain in full force and effect until further
order of the court (Sec. 31 [b]).
 7

(a) Additional protective orders

The court may, motu propio 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 (Sec. 31(c).

(2) Rule in DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC)

Meaning of DNA
DNA means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules
found in every nucleated cell of the body. The totality of an individual's
DNA is unique for the individual, except identical twin. (Sec. 3 [b], A.M.
No. 06-11-5-SC).

Who may issue a DNA testing order

The appropriate court, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of
any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. (Sec. 4)
The Rule on DNA Evidence does not preclude the conduct of 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.

Conditions of issuance
(1) Due notice and hearing; and (2) a showing that:
(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 or integrity of the DNA testing.

Contents of DNA testing order

If the court finds that the requirements in Section 4 have been complied with,
the court shall
(a) Order 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, and
(c) Issue an order requiring all parties to the case or proceedings to
witness the DNA testing to be conducted if there not enough samples
for confirmatory testing of the other party (Section 5).

The court my order that the result of the DNA testing be simultaneously
released to the parties. (Section 5).
N.B.: An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory and
shall not be appealable.
 8

Any petition for certiorari initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the
implementation thereof, unless a higher court issues an injunctive order
(Section 5).
The grant of a 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.

Post-conviction DNA testing; remedy

Court order is not required.
This remedy is available 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 (Section 6)

Remedy if the results are favorable to the convict

File a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin. 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.
In case the court, after due hearing, finds the petition to be meritorious,
it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the
release of the convict, unless continued detention is justified for a lawful
cause. (Section 10).

Factors considered in the assessment of probative value of DNA evidence:

(a) The chain of custody (i.e., handling and collection biological samples;
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.
(d) The reliability of the testing results

N.B.: If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the

laboratory in forensic casework and credibility must be properly
established (Section 7[b])
The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of
evidence shall apply suppletorily in assessing the probative value of DNA
evidence (Section 7, par. 2).

Evaluation of DNA Testing Results; Factors

(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
 9

(c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be
conclusive proof of non-paternity (Section 9).

If the value of the Probability of Paternity < 99.9%, the results of the DNA
testing = corroborative evidence.
If the value of the Probability of Paternity > 99.9% or higher = there shall be a
disputable presumption of paternity (Section 9[c]).

DNA Testing Orders in paternity and filiation suits

In Lucas v. Lucas (G.R. No. 190710, 6 June 2011), the Supreme Court felt the
need to supplement Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence and ruled that
since a DNA Testing Order could indeed be likened to a search, it is
proper that during hearings on motions for DNA testing, the movant must
present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of
paternity.

Evaluation of the Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology; Factors

(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 (Section 8)

(3)

Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)

Scope -- The Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE) apply whenever an

electronic document or electronic data message is offered or used in evidence
(REE, Sec. 1).

Meaning of electronic document

Electronic document refers to information or the representation of
information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression,
described or however represented:
(e) by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or
(f) 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. Under the REE, the term electronic
 10

document is interchangeably with electronic data message. (REE, Rule

2, Sec. 1[h]).

Electronic data message refers to information generated, sent, received or

stored by electronic, optical or similar means. (REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1[g]).

Meaning of electronic signature

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. An electronic signature includes digital
signatures.. (REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1[j]).

Evidentiary weight of electronic documents

Electronic evidence is considered as the 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 include an electronic document (REE, Rule 3, Sec. 1)
The 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 (REE,
Rule 4, Sec. 1).
Factors for assessing evidentiary weight:
(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. (REE,
Rule 7, Sec. 1).

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
 11

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.
(REE, Rule 7, Sec. 2).

Method of Proof
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 (REE, Rule 9).
The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to
testify on the matters contained therein (REE, Rule 9, Sec. 1).
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
(REE, Rule 9, Sec. 2).

Authentication of Electronic Documents

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. (REE, Rule 5, Sec. 2).

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. (REE, Rule 5, Sec. 2).

Authentication of Electronic Signatures

An authenticated electronic signature under the REE is admissible in
evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written
document. (REE, Rule 6, Sec. 1).
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. (REE, Rule 6, Sec. 2).

Business records as exception to the hearsay rule

Business records include records of any business, institution, association,
profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not
 12

conducted for profit, or for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. (REE, Rule

2, Sec. 1[b]).

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. (REE, Rule 8, Sec.
1).

However, the hearsay rule may be applied to business records as defined

under the REE by presenting evidence of the untrustworthiness of:
the source of information;
the method or circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage
thereof. (REE, Rule 8, Sec. 2).

Audio, photographic, video and ephemeral evidence

Audio, video and similar evidence shall be proven:
(a) by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has
personal knowledge thereof.
(b) In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent
evidence may be admitted.
(c) If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an
electronic document, then the provisions of Rule 5 on authentication of
electronic documents shall apply.

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.(REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1[k]).
Text messages are to be proved by the testimony of a person who was a
party to the same or has personal knowledge of them. x x x As the recipient
of those messages sent from and to the mobile phone in his possession,
[PO3 Cambi] had personal knowledge of such messages and was
competent to testify on them (People v. Noel Enojas, et al., G.R. No. 204894, 10
March 2014).
The transcript of text messages is considered ephemeral electronic
communications. Ephemeral electronic communications are now
admissible evidence, subject to certain conditions. 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.
It may be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the
communications or has personal knowledge thereof.

Under Section 1, Rule 11 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, audio, photographic and

video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided
 13

it shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be

identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the
recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy
thereof. (Ella Bartolome v. Rosalie Maranan, A.M. No. P-11-2979, 18 November
2014).

(4)

Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

Scope- The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings and
incidents requiring the reception of evidence before:
(a) The Metropolitan Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the
Municipal Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the
Sharia Circuit Courts;
(b) The Regional Trial Courts and the Sharia District Courts;
(c) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals,
and the Sharia Appellate Courts;
(d) The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court
to receive evidence, including the IntegratedBar of the Philippines
(IBP); and
(e) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure
are subject to the disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar as their
existing rules of procedure contravene the provisions of this Rule

Note: The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall not apply to small claims cases
under A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC.

Submission of Judicial Affidavits and Exhibits- The parties shall file with
the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed courier
service, not later than five (5) days before pre-trial or preliminary
conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents,
the following:
(a) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the place of
such witnesses' direct testimonies; and
(b) The parties' documentary or object evidence, if any, which shall be
attached to the judicial affidavits (Sec. 2, Judicial Affidavit Rule).

Contents of Judicial Affidavits (Sec 4, Judicial Affidavit Rule)

(a) Prepared in the language known to the witness (The Judicial Affidavit
shall be accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino if not
prepared in a language other than English or Filipino);
(b) Name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the
witness;
(c) Name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the
examination of the witness and the place where the examination is
being held;
(d) 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;
 14

(e) 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) Facts relevant to the issues;
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object evidence
(4) Establish the authenticity of the documentary and object
evidence in accordance with the Rules of Court.
(f) Signature of the witness over his printed name;
(g) Jurat with signature of the notary public who administers the oath or
an officer who is authorized by law to administer the same.
(h) Sworn Attestation of the lawyer who conducted or supervised the
examination of the witness, to the effect that:
a. He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions he
asked and the corresponding answers of the witness(es); and
b. Neither the lawyer nor other person then present or assisting
him coached the witness regarding the latters answer.

Effect of False Attestation- a false attestation shall subject the erring lawyer
to disciplinary action, including disbarment.

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.

Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule expressly excludes from its

application adverse parties and hostile witnesses. For the presentation of
these types of witnesses, the provisions on the Rules of Court under the
Revised Rules of Evidence and all correlative rules including the modes of
disposition and discovery rules shall apply (Ng Meng Tam v. China Banking
Corporation, G.R. No. 214054, 5 August 2015).

Application of Judicial Affidavit Rule to Criminal Actions (Sec. 9, Judicial

Affidavit Rule): The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to all criminal
actions:
(a) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six
years;
(b) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of
the penalty involved; or
(c) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties
involved are (Sec. 9).

The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses

not later than five days (5) before the pre-trial, serving copies if the
same upon the accused (Sec. 9).
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 within
ten (10) days from receipt of such affidavits. These affidavits shall
 15

serve as direct testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when

they appear before the court to testify (Sec. 9).

Effect of non-compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule (Sec 8, Judicial

Affidavit Rule):
o Failure to submit the required Judicial Affidavits:
Deemed to have waived their submission
The Court, may, however, allow only once the late
submission of the same provided: (a) the delay is for a valid
reason, (b) the delay would not unduly prejudice the
opposing party, and (c) the defaulting party pays a fine of
not less than Php1,000 but not more than P5,000, at the
discretion of the Court.
o Failure of the witness to appear at the Scheduled Hearing:
The witness judicial affidavit shall not be considered.
o Failure of the counsel to appear without valid cause despite
notice:
The counsel is deemed to have waived his clients right to
confront by cross-examination the witnesses there present.
o Failure of the Judicial Affidavits to conform to the content and
attestation requirements:
The Judicial Affidavit shall not be admitted as evidence.
The Court, may, however, allow only once the subsequent
submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before
the hearing or trial provided: (a) the delay is for a valid
reason, (b) the delay would not unduly prejudice the
opposing party, and (c) the defaulting party pays a fine of
not less than Php1,000 but not more than P5,000, at the
discretion of the Court.

(5)

Guidelines to be observed by the Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in

the conduct of Pre-Trial and use of Deposition-Discovery Measures (A.M.
No. 03-1-09-SC)

Purposes:
o To abbreviate court proceedings;
o To ensure prompt disposition of cases and decongest court dockets;
and
o To further implement the pre-trial guidelines laid down in
Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated 15 January 1999.

One-Day Examination of Witness Rule- A witness has to be fully

examined in one (1) day only. This rule shall be strictly adhered to, subject
to the courts discretion during trial on whether or not to extend the direct
and/or cross-examination for justifiable reasons.
o On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is require to make
his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his las witness
 16

and the opposing party is required to immediately interpose his

objection thereto.

Most Important Witness Rule- Determine the most important witnesses to

be heard and limit the number of witnesses. The facts to be proven by each
witness and the approximate number of hours per witness shall be fixed.

(6)

Pilot Rules for Preliminary Conference and Trial on the Issues (A.M. No.
12-8-8-SC)

Scope- These Pilot Rules for Preliminary Conference and Trial on the Issues
shall apply to all civil actions in certain first and second level courts that
have not yet undergone pre-trial.

Rule 22. Preliminary Conference

o Appearance of parties- It shall be the duty of the parties and their

counsels to appear at the preliminary conference (Section 22.6).
o When non-appearance may be excused (1) for a valid cause shown or
(2) if the party is represented by another person fully authorized to
act on his behalf respecting all the matters subject of the conference
(Section 22.6).
o Failure of parties or counsels to appear- The court shall, within thirty
(30) days from the date of the scheduled preliminary conference,
render a decision adjudicating the other partys claim after the
courts ex parte examination of such partys witness or witnesses
based on their judicial affidavits (Decision as in default) (Section
22.7).
o Remedy against Decision as in Default- Motion with the Court, with
prior notice to the adverse party that his or her failure to comply
with what was required of him or her has been due to: (1) extrinsic
fraud or (2) unavoidable accident.
If the ground is not meritorious, the court may still grant the
motion, set aside the decision of default, and reschedule the
preliminary conference, upon admission of error or neglect
by the party or his counsel and after payment of fine.

Rule 24. Trial of Issues

o Alternate Trial (Section 24.1)- One where the parties take turns in
presenting their witnesses respecting the first factual issues or
related issues stated in the order of trial.
Note: The party who bears the burden of proving the
affirmative of the issue under consideration shall be the first
to present a witness.
o Face-to-face Trial (Section 24.2)- One wherein witnesses from the
contending sides appear together before the court, sit face-to-face
around a table in a non-adversarial environment, and answer
 17

questions from the court as well as the parties counsel respecting

the factual issue under consideration.
o Options for trying the issues- The Court shall have the option to try
the issues embodied in the Terms of Reference, either by alternate
or face-to-face trial. In case the Court opts to try the issues by face-
to-face trial, the court may conduct either simple or regular face-to-
face trial.
o Common Rules governing both alternate and face-to-face trials :
Each factual issue shall be tried strictly in the sequence
provided in the Order of Trial although two or more closely
related issues may be simultaneously tried;
A party may move on proper ground to disqualify a witness
before he or she is examined and strike out his or her
judicial affidavit or exclude any of the answers found in it
on the ground of inadmissibility.
A party may likewise move to exclude any of the exhibits
attached to the judicial affidavit on the ground of
inadmissibility.
The court and counsels shall examine the witnesses and
determine the truthfulness of the judicial affidavits that
constitute their direct testimonies in the case.
A witness may testify on one or more issues.
o When face-to-face examination of witness shall not apply (Section
24.10): The face-to-face examination of witnesses shall not apply
when one of the witnesses to the factual issue under consideration
is either (a) a child covered by the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness, or (b) a person who is mentally, psychologically, or
physically challenged or has a similar condition that puts such
witness at a disadvantage in a face-to-face confrontation.
o Trials shall be intransferable (Section 24.14). As a general rule,
because of the numerous persons involved in, and the complex
preparations required for the conduct of trial, the dates set for
trials shall be intransferable, except on the ground of a fortuitous
event or serious illness of a counsel or witness.
No motion for postponement or resetting shall be granted
on the ground of serious illness of a counsel or witness
unless the party concerned presents a medical certificate
issued by a physician stating that the illness is of such
gravity as to prevent the counsel or witness from attending
the scheduled court hearing.
The court may order the physician to appear before
the court or order another physician to verify the
truth
If the certification turns out to be false, the certifying
physician shall be held in contempt of court and
punished accordingly.
 18

Rules 128-132, Rules of Court

A. Preliminary Considerations

Rule 128. General Provisions

Sec. 1. Evidence defined

Evidence is the means of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth

respecting a matter of fact.
Proof is the effect of evidence. It is the probative effect of evidence and
is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a
consideration of the latter; while evidence is the cause necessary to
establish proof. It is also the mode and manner of proving competent
facts.
Questions of fact exist when the doubt or difference arises as to the
truth or falsehood of alleged facts.
Questions of law exist when the doubt or difference arises as to
what the law is on a certain set of facts.

Sec. 2. Scope
Rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and
hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or the Rules of Court.
Evidentiary rules under the Rules of Court are specifically applicable
only in judicial proceedings.
In quasi-judicial proceedings, the same apply by analogy, or in a
suppletory character, and whenever practicable and convenient (Rule 1,
Sec. 4).

Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence

Requisites for admissibility of evidence:
(a) Relevance
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue.
Relevance is determined by rules of logic and human
experience.
Relevance depends on the factum probandum, or the ultimate fact
sought to be proved.
Factum probans is the evidentiary fact or the fact by which the
factum probandum is to be established.
Factum probandum is the ultimate fact sought to be established.

(b) Competence
The evidence must not be excluded by law or by the Rules of
Court.
All facts having rational probative value are admissible unless
some specific rule forbids their admission.
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.
 19

Competent evidence refers to evidence which is not excluded by

law in a particular case.
Credibility refers to worthiness of belief, that quality which
renders a witness worthy of belief (Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th ed.,
330). Whether or not a witness or evidence is credible is an issue
addressed to the judgment of the trial court (People v. Castro,
G.R. No. 172874, 17 December 2008).

Sec. 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.

B. Admissibility

Rule 130. Rules of Admissibility

Multiple admissibility - when evidence is relevant and competent for two or

more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any and all the purposes
for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its
admissibility. (Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium [Vol. II], pp. 694-695).

Conditional admissibility - where the evidence at the time it is offered

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

Curative admissibility - when a party offers an inadmissible fact which is

received because there is no objection by the other party. The other party does
not acquire the right to introduce in reply to the same kind of evidence, except
whenever it is needed for removing an unfair prejudice which might otherwise
have ensued from the original evidence.

Direct evidence - refers to evidence that directly proves a fact without need to
make inference from another fact.

Circumstantial evidence - refers to proof of the fact or facts from which, taken
either singly or collectively, the existence of a particular fact in dispute may be
inferred as a necessary or probable consequence.

Positive evidence - when a witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur. This
is entitled to greater weight since witness relates matters within his personal
knowledge.

Negative evidence - a witness states that an event did not occur or that the facts
alleged to exist did not actually exist.
 20

A. Object (Real) Evidence

Sec. 1. Object as evidence

Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court.

Object evidence includes any article or object which may be known or
perceived by the use of any of the senses sight (visual), hearing (auditory),
touch (tactile), taste (gustatory), or smell (olfactory).
Documents may be considered object evidence if the same are presented for
the following purposes: (a) to prove their existence or condition or the nature
of the handwritings thereon; and (b) to determine the age of the paper used or
the blemishes or alterations thereon.

Requisites for admissibility:

When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court.
Court may refuse introduction of object evidence and rely on testimonial
evidence alone if:
(a) Exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy, morals or decency;
But if viewing is necessary in the interest of justice, the evidence
may still be exhibited but the court may exclude the public from
such view.
Viewing may not be refused if the indecent or immoral object
constitutes the very basis for the criminal or civil action.

(b) To require that it be viewed in court or in an ocular inspection would

result in delays, inconvenience and expenses out of proportion to the
evidentiary value of such object;
(c) Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading; and
(d) Testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly
portrays the object in question as to render viewing unnecessary.

Demonstrative evidence - is evidence in the form of a representation of an

object. This is, as opposed to, real evidence, testimony, or other forms of
evidence used at trial. Demonstrative evidence is useful in assisting a finder of
fact (fact-finder) in establishing context among the facts presented in a case.

Autoptic preference - in legal parlance, simply means a tribunal's self-

perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself. (Balingit v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
170300, 9 February 2007). It is referred to as the evidential datum which
decision-makers will perceive using their five senses (Anderson, Schum, and
Twining, Analysis of Evidence, 2nd Ed.).

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. This
would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that
every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness'
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which
 21

it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same (People of the Philippines v. Dalawis, G.R. No. 179128, 9
November 2015; People v. Punzalan, G.R. No. 199087, 11 November 2015).
The rule on chain of custody under the Section 21, R.A. No. 9165 and its
implementing rules expressly demands the identification of the persons
who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the
authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia
from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are
presented in court. Moreover, as a method of authenticating evidence, the
chain of custody rule 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. It would include testimony about
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the
time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched
the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it
was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was
delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in
the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain
to have possession of the same.

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs
or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused.
In this case, however, the records are bereft of any evidence, which would
clearly show that the said plastic sachets were indeed marked in the
presence of the accused. Nor was there any evidence as to the identity of
the individual who brought the seized plastic sachets from the police
station to the PNP (Carlito Valencia v. People, G.R. No. 198804, 22 January
2014).

It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment
the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way
that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from
whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witnesses' possession, the condition in which it was received and the
condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
In warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation the physical inventory
and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, consistent with
the "chain of custody" rule (People v. Joselito Beran, G.R. No. 203028, 15
January 2014).
Although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of
custody in the handling of evidence, "substantial compliance with the legal
requirements on the handling of the seized item" is sufficient. This Court has
consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers failed to strictly
comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such
procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized
inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the
 22

preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items,

as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused. In other words, to be admissible in evidence,
the prosecution must be able to present through records or testimony,
the whereabouts of the dangerous drugs from the time these were
seized from the accused by the arresting officers; turned-over to the
investigating officer; forwarded to the laboratory for determination of
their composition; and up to the time these are offered in evidence. For
as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even
though the procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No.
9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be
affected (People v. Ortega, G.R. No. 207392, 2 July 2014).

Although the Court has recognized that minor deviations from the
procedures under R.A. No. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an
accused, we have also declared that when there is gross disregard of the
procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. No.
9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized
items that the prosecution presented in evidence. This doubt cannot be
remedied by simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate
disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an
irregularity in the performance of official duties (People v. Edao, G.R.
No. 188133, 7 July 2014).

The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted
the required physical inventory in the place where the subject shabu
was seized does not automatically render accuseds arrest illegal or the
items seized from him inadmissible. A proviso was added in the
implementing rules that "non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items." Pertinently, it is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which must be
proven to establish the corpus delicti.

The prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary

value of the said illegal drugs. The concurrence of all elements of the
illegal sale of shabu was proven by the prosecution. The chain of
custody does not appear to have been broken. The recovery and
handling of the seized drugs were satisfactorily established. As
correctly found by the appellate court, "no break whatsoever in the
chain of custody of the prohibited drugs occurred. The testimonial,
 23

documentary, and object evidence presented by the prosecution

established every link in the custody of the prohibited drugs. This leads
to no other conclusion than that the specimen examined by the forensic
chemist, which tested positive for shabu, and which were presented as
evidence during the trial, were the ones taken from accused-appellant
during the buy-bust operation." (People v. Fang, G.R. No. 199874, 23 July
2014).

A buy bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the

PDEA (People v. Lafaran, G.R. No. 208015, 14 October 2015).

Essential links in the chain of custody of seized illegal drugs:

(a) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer;
(b) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer;
(c) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
(d) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the
forensic chemist to the court. (People v. Fermin and Madayag, Jr., G.R. No.
179344, 3 August 2011).

As provided by the implementing rules and jurisprudence, strict

compliance of the requisites under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 can
be disregarded as long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal
drug are properly preserved; and its preservation can be well established if
the chain of custody of illegal drug was unbroken. (People v. Fermin and
Madayag, Jr., G.R. No. 179344, 3 August 2011).

Testimony on perfect chain not required -- The Supreme Court held that,
undeniably, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard
as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain...what is of
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items. An astute perusal of Section 21 of the IRR of
RA 9165 readily reveals that the custodial chain rule is not to be
rigorously applied, provided "the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team."
Thus, the supposed procedural infirmities alleged by Quiamanlon with
regard to the custody, photographing, inventory, and marking of the seized
items do not, in any manner, affect the prosecution of the instant case and
do not render her arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible
(People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January 2011).

Presentation of confidential informant not indispensable -- The non-

presentation of the confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecutions
case. The presentation of an informant is not a requisite in the prosecution
of drug cases. The failure to present the informant does not vitiate the
prosecutions cause as his testimony is not indispensable to a successful
prosecution for drug-pushing since it would be merely corroborative of,
and cumulative with, that of the poseur-buyer who was presented in court
 24

and testified on the facts and circumstances of the sale and delivery of the
prohibited drug. (People v. Andres, G.R. No. 193184, 7 February 2011).

Failure to immediately mark seized drugs -- The failure to immediately

mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of
custody as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items have been preserved, as these would be utilized in the determination
of the guilt or innocence of the accused. What is essential is that the police
officers account for the crucial links in the chain of custody of seized illegal
drugs. (People v. Morales, G.R. No. 188608, 9 February 2011).

Failure to take photographs and inventory the same is not fatal as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of seized illegal drugs were preserved.
In People v. Presas (G.R. No. 182525, 2 March 2011), the Supreme Court noted
that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers
conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence
confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, does not automatically render
accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. Notably, the
implementing rules of the IRR provide that "non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures
of and custody over said items." The same provision also states that it must
still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved.

Failure to sign the receipt- The fact that the Receipt/Inventory of Property
Seized was not signed by Atty. Gaspe does not undermine the integrity and
evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized from accused-appellants. The
failure to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of
seized drugs does not render an arrest of the accused illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused (People v. Punzalan, G.R. No. 199087, 11 November
2015).

Presumption of regularity, standing alone, cannot defeat the presumption

of innocence -- The presumption that the police officers regularly
performed their duty cannot, standing alone, defeat the presumption of
innocence of the accused. Generally, law enforcers are presumed to have
regularly performed their duty, but this is a mere procedural presumption
which cannot overturn the constitutionally recognized presumption of
innocence of the accused where lapses in the buy bust operation are
shown. An effect of this lapse, as held in Lopez v. People, is to negate the
presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the
police officers. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and
should make the presumption unavailable (People v. Martin, G.R. No.
193234, 19 October 2011).

Burden of proof and burden of evidence

 25

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. (Rule 131, Sec. 1).
Burden of evidence is the duty resting upon a party, by means of evidence,
to create or meet a prima facie case.
Burden of proof never shifts, while burden of evidence is transferred from
one litigant to another depending on the progress of trial.

Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence

Civil cases The burden is on the
party who would be defeated if no
evidence were given on either side.
Criminal cases The burden is
always on the prosecution.
Both civil and criminal cases The
burden lies with the party who
asserts an affirmative allegation.

The burden of proof does not shift
as it remains throughout the trial
with the party upon whom it is
imposed.
The burden of proof is generally
determined by the pleading filed by
the party.
The burden of evidence shifts from
party to party depending on the
exigencies of the case in the course
of the trial.
The burden of evidence is
generally determined by the
developments of the trial or by
provisions of law.

Negative allegations
a negative allegation does not have to be proven unless the same is an
essential part of the cause of action or defense.
However, in civil cases, even if a negative allegation is an essential part of
the defense, such does not have to be proven if it is only for the purpose of
denying the existence of a document which would properly be in the
custody of the adverse party.
If the criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation or that a
negative averment is an essential element of the crime - the prosecution has
the burden of proving the charge.
Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or where
the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the
onus probandi rests on him.

Equipoise or equiponderance doctrine

Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on
which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of
proof fails upon that issue. (Rivera v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115625,
January 23, 1998).
Therefore, as neither party was able to make out a case, neither side could
establish its cause of action and prevail with the evidence it had. They are
thus no better off than before they proceeded to litigate, and, as a
consequence thereof, the courts can only leave them as they are (Rivera,
supra citing Municipality of Candijay, Bohol v. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 530).
The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is
 26

consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with
his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty,
and does not suffice to produce a conviction. (Bernardino v. People, G.R. Nos.
170453 and 170518, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 237, 25).

B. Documentary Evidence

Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing letters,

words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered
as proof of their contents (Rule 130, Sec.2).
A document is a deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which
something is proved, evidenced or set forth. (U.S. v. Orera, 11 Phil 596)
Documentary evidence is that which is furnished by written instruments,
inscriptions and documents of all kinds. (32 CJS 475)

Requisites for admissibility:

(a) the document must be relevant;
(b) the evidence must be authenticated;
(c) the document must be authenticated by a competent witness; and
(d) the document must be formally offered in evidence.

Sec. 2. Documentary Evidence

1. Best Evidence Rule

Best evidence rule, defined

When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself (Rule 130, Sec. 3).

When applicable
The rule is applicable when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document (Rule 130, Sec. 3).
The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a writing are in
issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts,
such as the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without
reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked (Heirs of
Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez and Clave, G.R. No. 170604, 2 September 2013).

does NOT apply when:

(a) to prove facts collateral to the issues, such as the nature, appearance or
condition of physical objects or to evidence relating to a matter which
does not come from the foundation of the cause of action or defense; or
(b) when a party uses a document to prove the existence of an independent
fact, as to which the writing is merely collateral or incidental (Lee v.
People G.R. No. 159288, 19 October 1 2004).

Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions

 27

Meaning of original
The following are considered originals of a document:
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject
of inquiry (Rule 130, Sec. 4);
(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 (Rule 130, Sec. 4);
(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 (Rule 130, Sec. 4);
(d) 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.
(Rules on Electronic Evidence, Sec. 1);
(e) 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. (Rules on Electronic Evidence, Sec. 2)

Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, copies or duplicates shall not be

admissible to the same extent as the original if:
a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
in the circumstance it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in
lieu of the original. (Rules on Electronic Evidence, Sec. 2)

Sec. 4. Original of document

2. Secondary Evidence

Sec. 5. When original document is unavailable

Sec. 6. When original document is in adverse partys custody or control

Sec. 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.

Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence

Secondary evidence is allowed in the following instances:
(1) When original is unavailable (Rule 130, Sec. 5) there must be proof by
satisfactory evidence of:
a. due execution of the original;
how to prove due execution:
i. testimony of person/s who executed document;
ii. testimony of the person before whom its execution was
acknowledged; or
iii. any person who was present and saw it executed and
delivered or who thereafter saw it and recognized the
signatures, or one to whom the parties thereto had previously
confessed the execution thereof
b. loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals; and
 28

c. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to

produce the original.

Secondary evidence which could be introduced after proving unavailability of

the original (in the order stated):
i. Copy of said document;
ii. Recital of its contents in an authentic document; or
iii. Recollection of witnesses.

Nevertheless, where the law specifically provides for the class and
quantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of a
document, or bars secondary evidence of a lost document, such
requirement is controlling.

(2) When original is in adverse partys custody or control requisites:

a. Document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party;
b. He must have reasonable notice to produce it;
c. 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.

Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice, as where it is for the
recovery or annulment of documents wrongfully obtained or withheld
by the other party, no notice to produce said documents is required.
(Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. v. Buenaflor, 36 OG 3290)
A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the
same is not obliged to offer it as evidence (Rule 130, Sec. 8).

(3) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents

which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the
fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the
whole. (Rule 130, Sec. 3[c]). requisites:
a. the voluminous character of the records must be established; and
b. such records must be made accessible to the adverse party so that their
correctness may be tested on cross-examination

(4) When the original 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.

3. Parol Evidence Rule

Sec. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record

Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreements

 29

The written agreement is already considered to contain all the things agreed
upon. Being a final agreement any extraneous evidence or parol evidence is
inadmissible for any of the following purposes: (a) to modify, (b) to explain; or
(c) to add to the terms of the written agreement.

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

Requisites for the application of Parol Evidence Rule

a. There is a valid contract;
b. The terms of agreement reduced to writing;
c. There is an issue as to the terms of agreement;
d. The dispute is between parties and their successors in interest (Rule 130,
Sec. 9).

When parol evidence can be introduced:

A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of
the parties thereto;
The validity of the written agreement; or
The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the written agreement. (Rule 130, Sec. 9)

In sum, two (2) things must be established for parol evidence to be admitted:
first, that the existence of any of the four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in
a partys pleading or has not been objected to by the adverse party; and second,
that the parol evidence sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the
conclusion proposed by the presenting party (Spouses Paras v. Kimwa
Construction and Development, G.R. No. 171601, 8 April 2015).

The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by
either party to the litigation against the other, where at least one party to the
suit is not a party or privy of a party to the written instrument in question and
does not base a claim or assert a right originating in the instrument of the
relation established thereby. Thus, if one of the parties is a complete stranger to
the contract, he is not bound by the rule. (See Rule 130, Sec. 9, par. 1)

Parol evidence cannot be introduced to alter or modify the express terms of the
Kasunduan. It is settled that the agreement or contract between the parties
is the formal expression of the parties rights, duties, and obligations and is the
best evidence of the parties intention. Thus, when the terms of an agreement
have been reduced into 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 (Carganillo v. People, G.R. No. 182424, 22 September 2014).

Parol evidence is based upon the consideration that when the parties have
reduced their agreement on a particular matter into writing, all their previous
 30

and contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged therein. (De

Guzman v. Calma, 100 Phil 1008).

Parol Evidence Rule v. Best Evidence Rule

Parol Evidence Rule Best Evidence Rule

Original document is available in court.
The rule prohibits the varying of the
terms of a written agreement.
With the exception of wills, this rule
applies only to documents which are
contractual in nature (written
agreements).
This rule can be invoked only when the
controversy is between the parties to the
written agreement, their privies, or any
party directly affected thereby, e.g. cestui
que trust.
Original writing is not available and/or
there is a dispute as to whether said
writing is the original.
The rule prohibits the introduction of
substitutionary evidence in lieu of the
original document.
The rule applies to all kinds of writings.
This rule can be invoked by any party to an
action regardless of whether or not such
party has participated in the writing
involved.

4. Interpretation of documents
Sec. 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning
Sec. 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions
Sec. 12. Interpretations according to intention; general and particular
provisions
Sec. 13. Interpretation according to circumstances
Sec. 14. Peculiar signification of terms
Sec. 15. Written words control printed
Sec. 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings
Sec. 17. Of two constructions, which preferred
Sec. 18. Construction in favor of natural right
Sec. 19. Interpretation according to usage

C. Testimonial Evidence
1. Qualification of witnesses

Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications

All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known
perception to others, may be witnesses (Rule 130, Sec. 20).
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 (Rule 130, Sec. 20).

Competency vs. credibility of a witness

 31

A competent witness is one who is not excluded by law or the Rules of

Court from being a witness. Competency is determined by the prevailing
exclusionary rules of evidence.
A credible witness is one who being competent to give evidence, is worthy
of belief (Blacks Law Dictionary).
It is well-settled that the determination of the credibility of the witnesses
is correctly assigned to the trial court, which is in the best position to
observe the demeanor and bodily movements of all the witnesses (People
v. Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, 11 December 2013).

Sec. 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;
(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 (Rule 130, Sec. 21)

Minority, alone, is not a sufficient ground for disqualification. Leeway should

be given to witnesses who are minors, especially when they are relating past
incidents of abuse (People v. Dominguez, G.R. No. 191065, 13 June 2011). Thus, a
child may still be a witness as long as the following are shown:
(a) capacity of observation;
(b) capacity of recollection; and
(c) capacity of communication (People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 113791, 22 February
1996, 254 SCRA 18).

Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility (People v. Rosales, G.R. No.
197537, 24 July 2013).

Mental unsoundness of the witness at the time of the event testified to affects
only his or her credibility. As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or
signs and gives sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded,
she is a competent witness even if she is a mental retardate (People v. Maceda,
G.R. No. 138805, 28 February 2001, 353 SCRA 228).

Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage

General Rule: During their marriage, spouses may not testify for or against the
other without the consent of the affected spouse. (Rule 130, Sec. 22).

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. (Rule 130, Sec. 22).

Requisites for spousal immunity

(a) Valid marriage; and
 32

(b) Other spouse is a party to the action.

Waiver of spousal immunity

The objection to the competency of the spouse must be made when he or she is
first offered as a witness. Failure to make a timely objection is tantamount to
waiver of spousal immunity (People v. Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634. 12 September
2002).

Spousal immunity in cases where a spouse is jointly charged with other

accused:
The testimony of a wife of an accused, when timely objected to, is inadmissible
against the latter. However, the same may be admitted as against other persons
jointly charged in said case. (People v. Quidato, Jr. G.R. No. 140634, 12 September
2002).

Estranged spouses
The disqualification does not apply in case of estranged spouses. Where the marital
and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be
preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based
upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of interests
disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-
existent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences of private
life, which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing but ideals, which
through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home (Alvarez v.
Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, 14 October 2005).

Sec. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party

Dead mans statute or survivors disqualification rule, where applicable
cases against an executor or administrator or other representative of a
deceased person upon a claim or demand against the estate of a deceased
person; or
against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the
estate of such person of unsound mind (Rule 130, Sec. 23).

When not applicable

Ordinary witnesses, who are not the plaintiff, assignor of plaintiff, or
person in whose behalf the case is prosecuted. (Bajenting v. Baez, G.R. No.
166190, 20 September 2006).
Officers and/or stockholders of a corporation are not disqualified from
testifying, for or against a corporation which is a party to an action upon a
claim or demand against the estate of a deceased person, as to any matter
of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person. (Lichauco v.
Atlantic Gulf, G.R. No. L-2016, 23 August 1949).
When there is an imputation of fraud against the deceased which had
been established beyond all doubt, the plaintiff is not barred from
testifying to such fraud. The Dead Mans Statute is not designed to shield
wrongdoers and to render a plaintiff incompetent to testify to fraudulent
transactions of the deceased (Ong Chua v. Carr, 53 Phil. 975; Go Chi Gun
v. Co Cho, 96 Phil. 622).
 33

When the plaintiff is the executor, administrator or legal representative

of the deceased, or the person of unsound mind, the defendant or
defendants are free to testify against the plaintiff (Tongco v. Vianzon, 50
Phil. 698).
When the survivor's testimony refers to a negative fact. (Mendezona v.
Vda. de Goitia, 54 Phil. 557).
When the survivor's testimony is favorable to the deceased (Icard v.
Marasigan, 71 Phil. 419).
Testimony on transactions with agent of deceased or incompetent party
(Goni, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al., 144 SCRA 231).

How waived
By not objecting to plaintiff's testimony on prohibited matters (Marella v.
Reyes, 12 Phil. 1).
By cross-examining the plaintiff on prohibited matters. (Tongco v. Vianzon,
50 Phil. 698).
By calling witnesses to testify on prohibited matters. (Arroyo v. Azur, 76
Phil. 493).
When the plaintiff's deposition is taken by the representative of the estate
or when counsel for the representative cross-examined the plaintiff as to
matters occurring during the deceased's lifetime (Goni, et al., v. Court of
Appeals, et al., 144 SCRA 231).

Dead mans statute vs. marital disqualification rule

Dead Mans Statute Marital Disqualification Rule

Not completely disqualified but is Complete and absolute

only prohibited from testifying on
the matters therein specified.
Applies only to a civil case or
special proceeding over the estate of
the deceased or insane person.
disqualification.
Applies to a civil or criminal case,
subject to the two exceptions
provided.

Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication

(a) Husband and wife (Marital Privilege Rule)

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.

Applicability:
Scope of protection extends during or after the marriage. (Rule 130, Sec.
24 [a]).
Since the confidential nature of the communication is the basis of the
privilege, the same cannot be invoked where it was not intended to be
kept in confidence by the spouse who received the same, as in the case
of a dying declaration of the husband to his wife as to who was his
assailant.
 34

Waiver of protection:
(a) Failure to object to presentation; or
(b) Through any conduct that may be construed as implied consent
(Lacurom v. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921, 10 March 2006).

Spousal immunity rule vs. marital privilege rule

Spousal Immunity Rule Marital Privilege Rule
Can be invoked only if one of the Can be claimed whether or not the
spouses is a party to the action. spouse is a party to the action.
Applies only if marriage is existing Can be claimed even after the marriage
at the time the testimony is offered. had been dissolved.

Constitutes a total prohibition Applies only to confidential

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

(b) Attorney-client privilege rule

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.

Requisites:
(i) Relationship of lawyer and client;
(ii) Privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication
between them in the course of, or with the view of professional
employment;
(iii) Client has not given his consent to the disclosure of the communication.
(Rule 130, Sec. 24[b]; Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564, 22 June
2010).

Persons covered:
(i) The attorney;
(ii) The 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 (Rule 130, Sec.
24[b]).

Waiver of protection
The client may waive the protection of the Attorney-Client Privilege
Rule. If the client waives the privilege, even his attorney cannot
invoke it.
The Regala Doctrine
General Rule: A lawyer may NOT invoke the privilege and refuse to
divulge the name or identity of his client.
 35

Exceptions: (1) When a strong probability exists that revealing the name
would implicate that person in the very same activity for which he
sought the lawyers advice; (2) When disclosure would open the client
to liability; (3) When the name would furnish the only link that would
form the chain of testimony necessary to convict (Regala v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938, 20 September 1996).

(c) Physician-Patient Privilege

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.

Requisites:
(i) The physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
(ii) The information was acquired or the advice or treatment was given by
him in his professional capacity for the purpose of treating and curing
the patient
(iii) The information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would blacken the
reputation of the patient;
(iv) The privilege is invoked in a civil case whether the patient is a party
thereto or not (Rule 130, Sec. 24 [c]).

Meaning of professional capacity

The physician may be considered to be acting in his professional
capacity when he attends to the patient for curative, preventive, or
palliative treatment. Thus, only disclosures which would have been
made to the physician to enable him to "safely and efficaciously to treat
his patient" are covered by the privilege. (Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 91114, 25 September 1992).

Waiver of protection
This privilege belongs to the patient, so that it is only he that can claim
or waive it. It is waivable expressly or impliedly (See Penn. Mutual Life
Ins. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind. 92).
Example: Under Rule 28, the court may order a party to submit to a
physical or mental examination, so long as the mental or physical
condition is in dispute. The party examined may request a report of the
examination. By doing so, he waives any privilege he may have in that
action regarding the testimony of every other person who has
examined him in respect of the same examination (Rule 28, Sec. 4).
Information elicited during consultation with a physician in the
presence of third parties removes such information from the mantle of
the privilege (Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91114, 25 September 1992).
What is protected is the tenor of the consultation. The number of times
a patient consulted with his doctor is not privileged. (Lim v. Court of
Appeals, supra).
 36

(d) Minister/Priest Penitent Privilege

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.

(e) State Secrets Rule

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.
Public interest is paramount. The rule that a public officer cannot be
examined as to communications made to him in official confidence does
not apply when there is nothing to show that the public interest would
suffer by the disclosure in question (Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board, 142
SCRA 523).

(f) Parental and Filial Privilege Rule

No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct
ascendants, children or other direct descendants (Rule 130, Sec. 25).
No descendant shall 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 (Family
Code, Article 215).

(g) Newsmans Privilege

The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper,
magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal
the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication
which was related in confidence to him, unless the court or a House or
committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the
security of the State (See R.A. No. 53, as amended by R.A. No. 1477, the Shield
Law).

(h) Privilege under the Labor Code

All information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be
treated as privileged communications and shall not be used as evidence in
the NLRC, and conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any
court or body regarding any matter taken up at the conciliation
proceedings conducted by them (Labor Code, Art. 233).

(i) Privilege under Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) laws

Mediation
Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged and
confidential (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[a]).
A party, a mediator, or a nonparty participant may refuse to disclose
and may prevent any other person from disclosing a mediation
communication (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[b]).
 37

Confidential information obtained during mediation shall not be

subject to discovery and shall be inadmissible in any adversarial
proceeding, whether judicial or quasi-judicial. However, evidence or
information that is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery does
not become inadmissible or protected from discovery solely by reason
of its use in a mediation (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[b]).
In such an adversarial proceeding, the following persons involved or
previously involved in a mediation may not be compelled to disclose
confidential information obtained during mediation: (1) the parties to
the dispute; (2) the mediator; (3) the counsel for the parties; (4) the
nonparty participants; (5) any persons hired or engaged in connection
with the mediation as secretary, stenographer, clerk or assistant; and (6)
any other person who obtains or possesses confidential information by
reason of his/her profession (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[c]).

Arbitration
The arbitration proceedings, including the records, evidence and the
arbitral award, shall be considered confidential and shall not be
published except (1) with the consent of the parties, or (2) for the
limited purpose of disclosing to the court of relevant documents in
cases where resort to the court is allowed herein.
Provided, however, that the court in which the action or the appeal is
pending may issue a protective order to prevent or prohibit disclosure
of documents or information containing secret processes,
developments, research and other information where it is shown that
the applicant shall be materially prejudiced by an authorized disclosure
thereof (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 23).

2. Testimonial privilege

Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege

3. Admissions and confessions

(a) Res inter alios acta rule
The maxim res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet literally means
things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not
parties to them (Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1178).

Though some claim that partnerships and joint ventures are totally
different animals, there are very few rules that differentiate one from
the other; thus, joint ventures are deemed "akin" or similar to a
partnership. In fact, in joint venture agreements, rules and legal
incidents governing partnerships are applied.

Obviously, as the intricate web of "ventures" entered into by and among

petitioners and MBMI was executed to circumvent the legal prohibition
against corporations entering into partnerships, then the relationship
created should be deemed as "partnerships," and the laws on
partnership should be applied. Thus, a joint venture agreement
between and among corporations may be seen as similar to
partnerships since the elements of partnership are present.
 38

Considering that the relationships found between petitioners and

MBMI are considered to be partnerships, then the CA is justified in
applying Sec. 29, Rule 130 of the Rules by stating that "by entering into
a joint venture, MBMI have a joint interest" with Narra, Tesoro and
McArthur (Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corp. v. Redmont
Consolidated Mines Corp., G.R. No. 195580, 21 April 2014).

The res inter alios acta rule has two branches, to wit:
i. The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided
(Rule 130, Sec. 128); and
ii. The rule that the 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 (Rule 132, Sec. 34).
iii.

(b) Admission by a party

Admission and confession, distinguished

Admission
It is a statement of fact which
does not involve an
acknowledgement of guilt or
liability.
Confession
It involves an acknowledgement of
guilt or liability.

It may be express or tacit. It must be express.

It may be made by third It can be made only by the party

persons and, in certain cases, himself and, in certain cases, are
are admissible against a party. admissible against his co-accused.

Sec. 26. Admissions of a party

An admission is an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact

which may be given in evidence against him (Rule 130, Sec. 2).

Sec. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible

Sec. 28. Admission by third party

General rule: The rights of a party CANNOT be prejudiced by an act,

declaration, or omission of another (Rule 130, Sec. 28). *This is also known as
the first branch of the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule (from res inter alios acta alteri
nocere non debet).

Exceptions: (a.k.a. vicarious admissions)

(a) Admissions by partner (Rule 130, Sec. 29);
 39

(b) Admissions by agent or one who has a joint-interest with the party (Rule
130, Sec. 29);
(c) Admission of co-conspirator (Rule 130, Sec. 30);
(d) Admission of privy of the party (Rule 130, Sec. 30).

Sec. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent

The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party may be given in

evidence against such party under the following requirements:
(e) That the partnership, agency or joint interest is established by evidence
other than the act or declaration;
(f) That the act/declaration must have been within the scope of the
partnership, etc;
(g) Such act/declaration must have been made during the existence of the
partnership, etc (Rule 130, Sec. 29).

Sec. 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 :
(h) The conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde;
(i) The admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy; and
(j) The admission relates to the conspiracy itself. (Rule 130, Sec. 30; Tamargo v.
Antiporda, G.R. No. 177727, 19 January 2010).

This rule applies only to extra-judicial acts or declaration of a co-conspirator,

but NOT to testimony given on the stand at the trial, where the defendant has
the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. And while the testimony of
accomplices or confederates in crime is always subject to grave suspicion,
"coming as it does from a polluted source," and should be received with great
caution and doubtingly examined, it is nevertheless admissible and competent
(People v. Serrano, G.R. No. L-7973, 27 April 1959).

Sec. 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:
(a) There must be a relation of privity between the party and the
declarant;
(b) The admission was made by the declarant, as predecessor in
interest, while holding title to the property; and
(c) The admission is in relation to said property (Rule 130, Sec. 31).

Privity in estate may have arisen by: (1) succession; (2) by acts mortis causa; or
(3) by acts inter vivos.
 40

Sec. 32. Admission by silence

Requisites -- Any act or declaration made in the presence and within the
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, may be given in
evidence against him, under the following requisites:
(a) He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person;
(b) He must have had the opportunity to deny it;
(c) He must have understood the statement.
(d) He must have an interest to object as he would naturally have done if the
statement was not true;
(e) The facts are within his knowledge; and
(f) he fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is material
to the issue. (Rule 130, Sec. 32; People v. Ciobal, G.R. No. 86220, 20 April
1990; People v. Ranario, 49 Phil. 220)

When not applicable

Accuseds refusal to be a witness during trial (Art. III, Sec. 17, 1987
Constitution).
Silence during official investigation (Art. III, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution; U.
S. v. De la Cruz, 12 Phil., 87).
Where the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent [e.g. acting on
advice of counsel]. (People v. Fong, G.R. No. L-7615, 14 March 1956).

When applicable to statements made in writing

The rule on admission by silence applies to adverse statements in writing if the
party was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the declarant. However, if there
was no such mutual correspondence, the rule is relaxed on the theory that
while the party would have immediately reacted by a denial if the statements
were orally made in his presence, such prompt response can generally not be
expected if the party still has to resort to a written reply (Villanueva v. Balaguer,
G.R. No. 180197, 23 June 2009).

Voluntary re-enactment
Voluntary participation in the re-enactment of the crime conducted by police is
considered tacit admission of complicity. In such cases, the accused actually
committed positive acts without protest or denial when he was free to refuse.
Had he not actually participated in the commission of the offense for which he
is charged, he would have protested being made to take part in the
reenactment thereof (People v. Fong, G.R. No. L-7615, 14 March 1956).

Sec. 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
(Rule 130, Sec. 33).

Judicial confession - one made before a court in which the case is pending and in
the course of legal proceedings therein; can sustain conviction by itself.
requisites:
 41

(a) It must be a categorical acknowledgement of guilt;

(b) It must be made by an accused in a criminal case; and
(c) It is without any exculpatory statement or explanation.

Extrajudicial confession -- one made in any other place or occasion and cannot
sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti. (Rule
133, Sec. 3).
Requisites:
(a) It must be voluntary;
(b) It must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent
counsel;
(c) It must be express; and
(d) It must be in writing (People v. Domantay, G.R. No. 130612, 11 May 1999).

Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime; it is the fact that a crime has
actually been committed (People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 180762, 4 March 2009).
In arson, the corpus delicti is generally satisfied by proof of the bare
occurrence of the fire, e.g., the charred remains of a house burned down and
of its having been intentionally caused.
In murder or homicide, the corpus delicti is the fact of death (People v. Garcia,
99 Phil. 381), which may be proved even circumstantially (People v. Sasota, 91
Phil. 111; People v. Moro Ansang, 93 Phil. 44).
In robbery or theft, the fact of loss (People v. Niem, 75 Phil. 668).
In an affray, the fact that pistol shots were heard and a bystander was killed
by one of the shots constitute evidence of corpus delicti, which is the violent
death of a person, whether feloniously caused or not (People v. Nocum, 77
Phil. 1018)

Extrajudicial confession is not binding upon third parties

An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not
admissible against his or her co-accused, and is considered as hearsay against
them.
The reason for this rule is that on a principle of good faith and mutual
convenience, a mans own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence
against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be
rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound
by the acts of mere unauthorized stranger (Tamargo v. Awingan, G.R. No.
177727, 19 January 2010).

Extrajudicial confessions, when admissible against co-accused

While the general rule is that an extra-judicial confession of an accused is
binding only upon himself and is not admissible against his co-accused, it has
been held that such a confession is admissible against a co-accused where the
confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of
participation by the co-conspirator (People v. Condemna, L-22426, 29 May 1968),
and where the co-conspirator's confession is corroborated by other evidence
(People v. Victor, G.R. No. 75154-55, 6 February 1990).
 42

Extrajudicial confession not admissible when confessant was not assisted by

counsel
An extrajudicial confession executed without the assistance of independent and
competent counsel is inadmissible in evidence. (People v. Velarde, G.R. No. 139333,
18 July 2002). A municipal mayor cannot be considered as a competent
and independent counsel qualified to assist a person under custodial
investigation (People v. Velarde, supra).

Extrajudicial confession vs. res gestae

Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made without counsel, but it was
spontaneously made by the accused immediately after the assault, the same is
admissible, not under the confession rule, but as part of the res gestae (People v.
Tampus, G.R. No. L-44690, 28 March 1980).

Statements during press-conference

The constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a
spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but
given in an ordinary manner whereby accused orally admitted having
committed a crime. The rights under Sec. 12 are guaranteed to preclude the
slightest use of coercion by the State as would lead the accused to admit
something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.
(People v. Mantung, G.R. No. 130372, 20 July 1999).

4. Previous conduct as evidence

Sec. 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(Rule
130, Sec. 34).
However, such evidence may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge;
identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like (Rule 130,
Sec. 34).

Sec. 35. Unaccepted offer

5. Testimonial knowledge

Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay

excluded

Hearsay evidence - any evidence, whether oral or documentary, whose

probative value is based not on personal knowledge of the witness but on the
knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand.
If a party does not object, the hearsay evidence is admissible. Illustration: The
repeated failure of the party to cross-examine the witness is an implied waiver
of such right and the testimony of the said witness who died thereafter should
not be excluded from the record (Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang
Pilipino, G.R. No. L-38964, 31 January 31).
 43

But hearsay evidence not objected to is admissible, it has no probative

value. Hearsay evidence whether objected to even if or not has no probative
value (People v. Parungao, G.R. No. 125812, 28 November 1996).
The real basis for the exclusion of hearsay evidence lies in the fact that hearsay
testimony is not subject to the tests which can ordinarily be applied for the
ascertainment of the truth of testimony, since the declarant is not present and
available for cross-examination (Mollaneda v. Umacob, G.R. No. 140128, 6 June
2001).

Two concepts of hearsay evidence:

(c) Second hand information (not derived from personal knowledge of
witness); and
(d) Testimony by a witness derived from his personal knowledge but the
adverse party is not given opportunity to cross-examine.

Principle of independently relevant statements

The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that
conversations communicated to a witness by a third person may be
admitted as proof that, regardless of their truth or falsity, they were
actually made. Evidence as to the making of such statements is not
secondary but primary, for in itself it (a) constitutes a fact in issue or (b) is
circumstantially relevant to the existence of such fact (Republic v. Heirs of
Alejega, G.R. No. 146030, 3 December 2002).

6. Exceptions to the hearsay rule

Sec. 37. Dying Declaration

Dying declaration is an ante mortem statement or statement in articulo mortis.

Requisites:
(a) That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact;
(b) That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding circumstances
of such death;
(c) That the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify
to;
(d) That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarants death is the
subject of the inquiry (People v. Serenas, G.R. No. 188124, 29 June 2010).

It is the belief of impending death and not the rapid succession of death that
renders the dying declaration admissible (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 111149, 5
September 1997).

In the case at bar, it appears that not all the requisites of a dying
declaration are present. From the records, no questions relative to the
second requisite was propounded to Januario. It does not appear that
the declarant was under the consciousness of his impending death when
he made the statements. The rule is that, in order to make a dying
declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death
must be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death and
not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders a dying
 44

declaration admissible. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned

all hopes of survival and looked on death as certainly impending. Thus,
the utterances made by Januario could not be considered as a dying
declaration (People of the Philippines v. Gatarin, G.R. No. 198022, 7 April
2014).

Victim need not state that he has lost all hope of recovery -- It is sufficient that
circumstances are such as to inevitably lead to the conclusion that at the time
the declaration was made, the declarant would not expect to survive the injury
from which he actually died. The degree and seriousness of the wounds and
the fact that death supervened thereafter constitute substantial evidence of the
victim's consciousness of his impending death (People v. Tanaman, et al., G.R.
No. 71768, 28 July 1987).

Mere gesture of a dying woman inconclusive -- The gesture of a dying woman

in pointing to a direction, when asked for the identity of her assailant, is too
vague to be given such probative value in determining the culpability of the
accused (People v. Ola, G.R. No. L-47147, 3 July 1987).

Sec. 38. Declaration against interest

Requisites:
(a) The declaration is made by:
(i) A person deceased; or
(ii) A person who is unable to testify (i.e. in foreign country or with
physical/mental impairments)
(b) The declaration is against the interest of the declarant:
(c) The fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far
contrary to declarants own interest, that a reasonable man in his position
would not have made the declaration, unless he believed it to be true.
((Rule 130, Sec. 38; Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111692, 9 February
1996).

The theory under which declarations against interest are received in evidence
notwithstanding they are hearsay is that the necessity of the occasion renders
the reception of such evidence advisable and, further that the reliability of such
declaration asserts facts which are against his own pecuniary or moral
interest (Parel v. Prudencio, G.R. No. 146556, 19 April 2006).

Admissions v. declaration against interest

Admissions
It is made by a party to a litigation or
by one in privity with or identified in
legal interest with such party
(Unchuan v. Lozada, G.R. No. 172671,
16 April 2009, 585 SCRA 421, 435).
Declaration Against Interest
It is made by a person who is
neither a party nor in privity with a
party to the suit (Lazaro v. Agustin,
G.R. No. 152364, 15 April 2010).
 45

It is admissible whether or not the It is admissible only when the

declarant is available as a witness. declarant is unavailable as a
(Unchuan v. Lozada, supra) witness. (Lazaro v. Agustin, supra).
It is not necessarily against the interest The declaration must necessarily be
of the admitter. against declarants interest.

Sec. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree

Requisites:
(a) Witness testifying as to reputation or tradition must be a member, by
consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the subject;
(b) Such tradition or reputation must have existed in that family ante litem
motam. (Rule 130, Sec. 40; People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 154278, 27 December
2002).

Sec. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree

Requisites:
(a) Witness testifying as to reputation or tradition must be a member, by
consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the subject;
(b) (2) Such tradition or reputation must have existed in that family ante litem
motam. (Rule 130, Sec. 40; People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 154278, 27 December
2002).

Sec. 41. Common reputation

Common reputation refers to general reputation; definite opinion of the
community in which the fact to be proved is known or exists.
Requisites:
(a) The subject of subject of inquiry must be facts of public or general interest
more than 30 years old, respecting marriage or moral character;
(b) The evidence must refer to facts ante litem motam;
(c) The facts may be established by:
Testimonial evidence of competent witness;
Monuments and inscription in public places; or
Documents containing statements of reputation.

Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae

Res gestae is a Latin phrase which literally means "things done. (Capila v.
People, G.R. No. 146161, 17 July 2006).

Two types:
(a) Spontaneous statements; and
 46

The rule in res gestae applies when the declarant himself did not testify
and the testimony of the witness who heard the declarant complies
with the following requisites:
(i) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
(ii) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive
or devise; and
(iii) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances (prior or subsequent) (Rule
130, Sec. 42; Maturillas v. People, G.R. No. 163217, 18 April 2006).
A sudden attack on a group peacefully eating lunch on a school
campus is a startling occurrence. Considering that the statements of
the bystanders were made immediately after the startling
occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as evidence given in res
gestae (People v. Feliciano, G.R. No. 196735, 5 May 2014).

(b) Contemporaneous statements or verbal acts. (Rule 130, Sec. 42)

Requisites:
(a) The principal act to be characterized must be equivocal;
(b) The equivocal act must be relevant to the issue;
(c) The verbal act must be contemporaneous with the equivocal act;
(d) The verbal act must give legal significance to the equivocal act
(Talidano v. Falcom Maritime & Allied Service, Inc. G.R. No. 172031, 14
July 2008).

Sec. 43. Entries in the course of business

Requisites:
(a) The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify;
(b) The entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which they
refer;
(c) The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
(d) The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of
a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious;
(e) The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or
duty (Rule 130, Sec. 43; Jose, Jr. v Michaelmar Phils., Inc., et al., G.R. No.
169606, 27 November 2009).

Entries in the course of business are accorded unusual reliability because their
regularity and continuity are calculated to discipline record keepers in the
habit of precision. If the entries are financial, the records are routinely balanced
and audited. In actual experience, the whole of the business world function in
reliance of such kind of records (LBP v. Monets Export and Manufacturing Corp.,
G.R. No. 184971, 19 April 2010).

Sec. 44. Entries in official records

 47

Requisites:
(a) Entries were made by: (i) (i) a public officer in the performance of his
duties; or (ii) by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined
by law;
(b) The entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts
were acquired by him from reports made by persons under a legal duty to
submit the same; and
(c) Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in the official records
(Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, G.R. No. 162243, 3 December 2009).

Entrant need not be presented -- The presentation of the records themselves

would, therefore, have been admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule even
if the public officer/s who prepared them was/were not presented in court,
provided the above requisites could be adequately proven (Alvarez v. PICOP
Resources, supra; Africa v. Caltex, 123 Phil. 272).

Police records of vehicular accidents -- The presentation of the police report

itself is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule even if the police
investigator who prepared it was not presented in court, as long as the
requisites under Rule 130, Sec. 44 could be adequately proved (Malayan
Insurance Co., Inc. v. Alberto, G.R. No. 194320, 1 February 2012).

Sec. 45. Commercial lists and the like

A document is a commercial list if:

(a) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation;
(b) such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or other published
compilation;
(c) said compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that
occupation, and
(d) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation
(Rule 130, Sec. 45; PNOC Shipping v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107518, 8
October 1998).

Sec. 46. Learned treatises

Requisites:
(a) The court takes judicial judicial notice of published treatise, periodical or
pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science or art; or
(b) 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 an expert in the subject (Rule 130, Sec. 46).

Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding

Requisites:
(a) Witness is dead or unable to testify;
(b) His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding,
judicial or administrative, between the same parties or those representing
the same interests;
(c) The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case,
although on different causes of action;
 48

(d) The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue
involved in the present case; and
(e) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the
former case.

Meaning of unable to testify -- The phrase "unable to testify" refers to a

physical inability to appear at the witness stand and to give a testimony.
Hence notwithstanding the deletion of the phrase "out of the Philippines,"
which previously appeared in Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,
absence from jurisdiction may still constitute inability to testify under the same
rule (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375, 16 December 2011).

Meaning of same parties -- To render the testimony of a witness admissible

at a later trial or action, the parties to the first proceeding must be the same as
the parties to the later proceeding. Physical identity, however, is not required;
substantial identity or identity of interests suffices, as where the subsequent
proceeding is between persons who represent the parties to the prior
proceeding by privity in law, in blood, or in estate. The term "privity" denotes
mutual or successive relationships to the same rights of property (Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, supra).

7. Opinion rule

Sec. 48. General rule

The opinion of a witness is NOT admissible (Rule 130, Sec. 48).

Exceptions:
(a) Opinion of expert witness;
(b) Opinion of ordinary witness.

Sec. 49. Opinion of expert witness

The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,

experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be received in
evidence. (Rule 130, Sec. 48).

Courts are not bound by experts testimony

Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states that the opinion of a
witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training,
which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence. The use of the word
"may" signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and
not mandatory on the part of the courts. Allowing the testimony does not
mean, too, that courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness. The
testimony of an expert witness must be construed to have been presented not
to sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the
determination of the issue before it, and is for the court to adopt or not to
adopt depending on its appreciation of the attendant facts and the applicable
law (Tabao v. People, G.R. No. 187246, 20 July 2011).
 49

Sec. 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; (c) the
mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted; and (d) his
impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person
(Rule 130, Sec. 48).

Criteria in Qualifying as an Expert Witness- In our jurisdiction, the criterion

remains to be the expert witness' special knowledge experience and practical
training that qualify him/her to explain highly technical medical matters to
the Court (Casumpang, et al. v. Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127, 11 March 2015).

Probative value of a handwriting expert witness testimony- The opinion of

handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the court, the experts
function being to place before the court data upon which the court can form its
own opinion. This principle holds true especially when the question involved
is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a
visual comparison of specimens of the questioned signatures with those of the
currently existing ones. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the
testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an
independent examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a
reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity (Garbo v. Spouses Garabato, G.R. No.
200013, 14 January 2015).

Expert witness not necessary if the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is applicable-
Where the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur is warranted, an
expert testimony may be dispensed with in medical negligence cases. Resort to
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as an exception to the requirement of an expert
testimony in medical negligence cases may be availed of if the following
essential requisites are satisfied: (1) the accident was of a kind that does not
ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency
that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged;
and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution of the person injured (Rosit v. Davao Doctors Hospital, et al., G.R.
No. 210445, 7 December 2015).

8. Character evidence

Sec. 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions

General rule: Character evidence is not admissible (Rule 130, Sec. 51).
Exceptions:
(a) Criminal cases
Accused may prove his good moral character pertinent to the moral
trait in the offense charged.
Prosecution may present character evidence pertaining to accuseds
bad moral character pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged only in rebuttal.
 50

Offended party 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) Civil cases

Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible
only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such
character has been impeached (Rule 130, Sec. 51).

Rape shield rule -- In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant's past

sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted
unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is
material and relevant to the case (R.A. No. 8505, Sec. 6).

C. Burden of Proof and What Need Not be Proved

Rule 131. Burden of Proof and Presumptions

Presumption is an inference of an existence or non-existence of a fact which courts

are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts.

Presumption compared with judicial notice and admissions:

Presumption - proponent still has to introduce evidence of the basis of the
presumption.
Judicial notice and judicial admission - as a rule, proponent does not have to
introduce evidence.

Classification of presumptions
Presumption of Law Presumption of Fact
Praesumptiones Juris Praesumptiones hominis
A deduction which the law A deduction which reason draws
expressly directs to be made from facts proved without an express
from particular facts. direction from the law to that effect.
Based on rules, laws, and Discretionary.
jurisprudence.
Types:
1. 1. Conclusive (juris et de
jure)
2. 2. Disputable (juris
tantum or prima facie)

Sec. 1. Burden of proof

Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions

Conclusive presumptions are not permitted to be overcome by any proof to the
contrary.
Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and
deliberately led another to believe a particular thing is true, and to act upon such
 51

belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission,
be permitted to falsify it (Rule 131, Sec. 2 [a]).
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (Rule 131,
Sec. 2 [b]).

Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions

Disputable presumptions are those which the law permits to be overcome or

contradicted.

Willful suppression of evidence under par. (e)

Requisites:
(a) The evidence is material.
(b) Party had the opportunity to produce the same.
(c) Said evidence is available only to said party.

Presumption does not apply:

(a) If the evidence is at the disposal of both parties. (People v. Ducay, 225 SCRA
1).
(b) The suppression was not wilful.
(c) The suppressed evidence is merely corroborative or cumulative.
(d) The suppression is an exercise of a privilege (People v. Navaja, 220 SCRA
624).

Presumption of authorship of a recent lawful act (par.1)

The rationale for this presumption is similar to the rationale for the
presumption of authorship of falsification, which states that in the absence of
satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged
document is the forger of said document. If a person had in his possession a
falsified document and 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. (Lastrilla v. Granada, G.R. No. 160257, 31 January 2006).

Sec. 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy

Rule 129. What Need Not Be Proved

Sec. 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory

The following need not be proved:

(a) Facts which a court shall or may take judicial notice of (Rule 129, Secs. 1 and
2);
(b) Judicial admissions (Rule 129, Sec. 4);
(c) Conclusive presumptions;
(d) Disputable presumptions not disputed;
(e) Res Ipsa Loquitur (Latin for "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself.)

Court is compelled to take judicial notice; takes place at the court's own initiative.
The court shall take mandatory judicial notice of the following (Rule 129, Sec. 1):
Existence and territorial extent of states;
 52

Their political history;

Forms of government;
Symbols of nationality;
Law of nations;
Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals;
Political constitution and history of the Philippines.
Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the
Philippines;
Laws of nature;
Measure of time;
Geographical divisions.

Sec. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary

Court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are
capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because
of their judicial functions. at the court's initiative, or on request of a party; requires
a hearing and presentation of evidence.

Judicial notice is discretionary in the following:

Matters of public knowledge;
Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration;
Matters which ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

Sec. 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.
Examples of matters of public knowledge:
Giving of tips, especially in a first rate hotel, is an accepted practice which the
Court can take judicial notice of (PAL v. CA, 257 SCRA 33, 1997).
The current practice among major establishments to accept payment by means
of credit cards in lieu of cash (Mandarin Villa v. CA, 257 SCRA 538).
Scientific findings that drug abuse can damage the mental faculties of the use.
(Bughaw, Jr. v. Treasure Isle Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 169606, November 27,
2009).

Sec. 4. Judicial admissions

Judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the

course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. (Rule 129, Sec.
4).
The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. (Rule 129, Sec. 4).
 53

Judicial admissions may be made in:

Pleadings filed by the parties; or
During the course of the trial, either by verbal or written manifestations or
stipulations.

A judicial admission must be made in the same case in which it is offered. If made
in another case or in another court, it must be proven as in any other fact, but
entitled greater weight. This is admissible unless:
Made only for purposes of the first case;
Withdrawn with the permission of the court; and
Court deems it proper to relieve the party.

Implied admissions of allegations of usury and in actionable documents if not

specifically denied under oath (Rule 8, Secs. 8 and 11).

Admissions during pre-trial in civil and criminal cases. (N.B.: In criminal cases the
admission must be reduced in writing and signed by accused and counsel [Rule
118, Sec. 4]).

Admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the

pleader. (Rule 10, Sec. 8). These are treated as extrajudicial admissions which must
be proven as fact.

Implied admissions in the modes of discovery (Depositions; Interrogatories Rule

23; Failure to specifically deny under oath within 15 days a Request for Admission
in a pending case Rule 26).

Plea of guilt in criminal case (N.B.: A withdrawn plea of guilt is inadmissible,

unlike in civil cases where a withdrawn judicial admission is considered an
extrajudicial admission).

Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive upon a client absent any gross
negligence which deprives counsel of due process of law or there is outright
deprivation of property or liberty (Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex, G.R. No.
174154, 17 October 2008).

Effect of judicial admissions

A matter admitted need no longer be proved;
The matter admitted cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive upon
the party making it.

How judicial admissions may be contradicted:

Upon a showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake; and
When it is shown that no such admission was made.

Foreign laws -- Foreign laws may be taken judicial notice in the following
instances:
When the foreign law refers to the law of nations. (Rule 129, Sec. 1).
When the court takes judicial notice of a published treatise, periodical or
pamphlet on a subject of law as a learned treatise. (Rule 130, Sec. 46).
 54

When the foreign statute is accepted by the Philippine government (Republic v.

Guanzon, 61 SCRA 360).
When a foreign judgment containing foreign law is recognized for
enforcement. (Rule 39, Sec. 48).
If the foreign law refers to common law doctrines and rules from which many
of our laws were derived. (Alzua v. Johnson, 21 Phil. 308).

Doctrine of processual presumption - Under this doctrine, the foreign law is

considered the same as the law of the forum. It arises if the foreign law, though
properly applicable is either not alleged or if alleged is not duly proved before a
competent court.

To prove foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and
comply with Rules 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court.

Law of Nations
Under the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land (1987 Constitution,
Article II, Section 2).
Being part of the law of the land, they are therefore technically in the nature of
local laws and thus subject to mandatory judicial notice.

Municipal ordinances
Generally, courts are required to take judicial notice of laws. However, courts
are not mandated to take judicial notice of municipal ordinances unless the
charter of the concerned city provides for such judicial notice. (City of Manila v.
Garcia, 1967). But inferior courts sitting in the respective municipalities or cities
are mandated to take judicial notice thereof. The reason is that violations of the
ordinances are usually vested to the inferior courts exclusively in the exercise
of their original jurisdiction.

If an inferior court took judicial notice of a fact and there was an appeal, such
court taking the appeal should likewise take judicial notice. (U.S. v. Blanco, 37
Phil. 126).

Court Orders
Courts are required to take judicial notice of the decisions of appellate courts
but not of the decisions of coordinate courts.
In fact, a court may not take judicial notice of the decision or the facts involved
in another case tried by the same court itself unless the parties introduce the
same in evidence or doing so is convenient.

D. Presentation of Evidence

Rule 132. Presentation of Evidence

A. Examination of Witnesses

Sec. 1. Examination to be done in open court

Sec. 2. Proceedings to be recorded
 55

Sec. 3. Rights and obligations of a witness

Rights of a witness
(a) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and
from harsh or insulting demeanor;
(b) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
(c) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
(d) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an
offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
(e) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it
be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be
presumed. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final
conviction for an offense. (Rule 132, Sec. 3).

Obligations of a witness:
(a) A witness must answer questions, although his answer may tend to
establish a claim against him (Rule 132, Sec. 3, par. 1).
(b) A witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an
offense (Rule 132, Sec. 3, par. 5).
(c) A witness must testify under oath or affirmation (Rule 132, Sec. 1).

Sec. 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness

Sec. 5. Direct examination

Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party.

Scope: facts relevant to the issue.

Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC), the judicial affidavits
of the parties witnesses shall take the place of such witnesses direct
testimonies. As such, the parties documentary or object evidence, if any shall
be attached to the judicial affidavits.

Sec. 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent

Scope
(a) Any matter stated in the direct examination;
(b) or connected therewith (Rule 132, Sec. 5);
(c) If unwilling/hostile/adverse party witness cross is limited to matters
stated during direct examination. (Rule 132, Sec. 12)

Purpose
(a) To test witness accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest
or bias, or the reverse; and
(b) To elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (Rule 132, Sec. 5).

Nature
(a) Fundamental right -- The right of a party to confront and cross-examine
opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature,
or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial
 56

powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. (Savory

Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino, et al., 1975, 62 SCRA 258)

(b) Personal right -- The right to cross-examination is a personal right which

may be expressly or impliedly waived. (Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng
Manggagawang Pilipino, et al., 1975, supra).

Lack of cross-examination; effect

When cross examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to
causes attributable to the party who offered the witness, the uncompleted
testimony is thereby rendered incomplete and should be stricken from the
record. (Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., v. Court of Industrial Relations, 86 SCRA 27).

It is not proper to exclude a witness because he heard the cross-examination of

a prior witness. Excluding future witnesses from the courtroom at the time
another witness is testifying, or ordering that these witnesses be kept separate
from one another, is primarily to prevent them from conversing with one
another. The purpose is to ensure that the witnesses testify to the truth by
preventing them from being influenced by the testimonies of the others. In
other words, this measure is meant to prevent connivance or collusion among
witnesses. The efficacy of excluding or separating witnesses has long been
recognized as a means of discouraging fabrication, inaccuracy, and collusion.
However, without any motion from the opposing party or order from the
court, there is nothing in the rules that prohibits a witness from hearing the
testimonies of other witnesses (Design Sources International, Inc. v. Eristingcol,
G.R. No. 193966, 19 February 2014).

Sec. 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent

Scope
(a) Any matter covered during cross-examination;
(b) Matters not covered during cross, upon the courts discretion. (Rule 132,
Sec. 6).

Purpose
(a) to explain; or
(b) to supplement his answers given during the cross- examination. (Rule 132,
Sec. 6).

Sec. 8. Re-cross examination

Scope
(a) Any matter covered during re-direct examination;
(b) Other matters, upon the courts discretion. (Rule 132, Sec. 7).

Purpose
(a) To test witness accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or
bias, or the reverse; and
(b) to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.
 57

Sec. 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. (Rule
132, Sec. 9)
A showing of some concrete, substantial grounds for recall, i.e. such as
particularly identified material points were not covered, or particular vital
documents were not presented to the witness or the cross-examination was
conducted in so inept manner as to result in a virtual absence thereof (People v.
Rivera, 200 SCRA 786).

Judges participation during examination of a witness

A judge who presides at a trial is not a mere referee. He must actively
participate therein by directing counsel to the facts in dispute, by asking
clarifying questions, and by showing an interest in a fast and fair trial
(Clarin v. Yatco, 56 O.G. 7042, Nov. 14, 1960).
He can interrogate witnesses to elicit the truth, to obtain clarification, or to
test their credibility (People v Moreno, 83 Phil. 286).
However, this power must be exercised by the court sparingly and
judiciously (People v. Ferrer, 44 O.G. 112).
The judge cannot curtail counsel's right to interrogate witnesses. (People v.
Bedia, 83 Phil. 909)

Recantation of a witness
Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be
obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary
considerations. Hence, a retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier
declaration. They are generally unreliable and looked upon with
considerable disfavor by the courts (People v. Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, 5
October 2011).
The rule is settled that in cases where previous testimony is retracted and a
subsequent different, if not contrary, testimony is made by the same
witness, the test to decide which testimony to believe is one of comparison
coupled with the application of the general rules of evidence (People v.
Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, 5 October 2011)

Sec. 10. Leading and misleading questions

A leading question is a question which suggests to the witness the answer

which the examining party desires (Rule 132, Sec. 10).

General rule: A leading question is not allowed.

Exceptions:
(a) On cross-examination;
(b) On preliminary matters;
(c) When there is difficulty in 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;
 58

(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. (Rule 132, Sec. 10).

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.
General rule: A misleading question is not allowed.
Exceptions: none.

Sec. 11. Impeachment of adverse partys witness

Methods of impeachment of adverse partys witness:

(a) Contradictory evidence;
Contradictory evidence refers to other testimony of the same witness, or other
evidence presented by him in the same case, but not the testimony of
another witness

(b) Evidence of prior inconsistent statements;

Prior inconsistent Statements refer to statements, oral or documentary, made
by the witness sought to be impeached on occasions other than the trial in
which he is testifying

(c) Evidence of bad character;

(d) Evidence of bias, interest, prejudice or incompetence.

Sec. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness

A party can impeach his own witness only by:
(a) Evidence contradictory to his testimony; or
(b) Evidence of prior inconsistent statements.

Exception: However, in the case of hostile witnesses, adverse party witnesses or

involuntary witnesses, they can also be impeached by other modes of
impeachment, aside from contradictory statements and prior inconsistent
statements made by them. (Rule 132, Sec. 12).

Sec. 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:
(a) the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times
and places and the persons present;
(b) he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, allowed to
explain them; and
(c) if the statements be in writing, they must be shown to the witness before
any question is put to him concerning them (Rule 132, Sec. 13).

Non-compliance with the foundational elements for this mode will be a

ground for an objection based on improper impeachment. Over a timely
objection, extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement without the
required foundation is not admissible (Riano, p. 327).
 59

Sec. 14. Evidence of good character of witness

Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such

character has been impeached (Rule 132, Sec. 14).
This arises from the presumption that the witness is truthful and of good
character, hence the necessity of initially showing such traits is unnecessary
(Riano, p. 331).

Sec. 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses

Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum
Sec. 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the
remainder admissible
Sec. 18. Right to inspect writing shown to witness

Judicial Affidavit Rule

Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, judicial affidavits of witnesses shall take
the place of their direct testimonies (Sec. 2).
The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on his
judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same.

B. Authentication and Proof of Documents

Authentication is the act or mode of giving authenticity to a statute, authority or
other written instrument, or a copy thereof, so as to render it legally admissible
in evidence (Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. VI, 1999 ed., p. 262).

Sec. 19. Classes of documents

Public and private documents

Public documents are:
(e) 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;
(f) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
testaments; and
(g) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required
by law to the entered therein (Rule 132, Sec. 19, par. 2).

All other writings are private (Rule 132, Sec. 19, par. 3).
o Baptismal Certificate is not a Public Document- We have already
held in Cabatania v. Court of Appeals that "while a baptismal
certificate may be considered a public document, it can only serve
as evidence of the administration of the sacrament on the date
specified but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the
child's paternity;" and that baptismal certificates were "per
se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation," and thus "cannot
be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove
[filiation]." (Alado v. Alcoran, G.R. No. 163362, 8 July 2015).
 60

As a general rule, public documents need not be authenticated; private

documents have to be authenticated to be admissible in evidence. (J.
Benipayo, Evidence: Basic Principles and Selected Problems)

Sec. 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 (Rule 132, Sec. 20, par. 1).

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is

claimed to be. (Rule 132, Sec. 20, par. 2).

Sec. 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary

Evidence of authenticity is not required when:

(a) Private document is more than thirty years old;
(b) Produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if
genuine; and
(c) Is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other
evidence of its authenticity need be given (Rule 132, Sec. 21).

Sec. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved

The handwriting of a person may be proved by:

(a) Testimony of:
Witness who actually who actually saw the person writing the
instrument (Rule 132, Sec. 20a).
Witness familiar with such handwriting (Rule 132, Sec. 22) and who
can give his opinion thereon, such opinion being exception to opinion
rule (Rule 130, Sec 50b).
Expert witness (Rule 130, Sec. 49).

(b) Comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted

genuine specimens thereof (Rule 132, Sec. 22).

No preference rule - The law makes no preference, much less distinction

among and between the different means stated in the Rules of Court in
proving the handwriting of a person. (Domingo v. Domingo, G.R. No. 150897,
11 April 2005)

Probative value of opinions of handwriting experts - Courts are not bound

to give probative value or evidentiary value to the opinions of handwriting
experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory. (Bautista v. Castro,
G.R. No. 61260, 17 February 1992, 206 SCRA 305, 312)

Sec. 23. Public documents as evidence

 61

Public documents as evidence

(a) Entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (Rule 132, Sec.
23).
(b) All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of:
(i) the fact which gave rise to their execution; and
(ii) date of the document. (Rule 132, Sec. 23).

Sec. 24. Proof of official record

The record of public documents (referred to in paragraph Rule 132, Sec. 19

[a]) may be evidenced by:
(a) An official publication thereof; or
(b) By a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or
by his deputy.

Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must state

Attestation requirements primary:

(a) Statement of correctness - 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. (Rule 132, Sec. 25)
(b) Official Seal - 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. (Rule 132, Sec. 25)

Requisites for foreign public documents

(a) Certificate of custody - If the record is not kept in the Philippines the copy
must be accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody.
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 (Rule 132, Sec. 24).
(b) Authentication the certificate must be authenticated by the seal of the
office of the issuer (Rule 132, Sec. 24).

Absent the attestation of the officer having the legal custody of the records
and the certificate to that effect by a Philippine foreign service officer, a mere
copy of the foreign document is NOT admissible as evidence to prove foreign
law (Wildvalley Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CA, G.R. No. 119602, 6 October 2000).

Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign

authority or tribunal may be proved by: (1) an official publication thereof or
(2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof. Such
official publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in
the Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal
custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized
Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. 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, and must be under the
official seal of the attesting officer.
 62

Section 25 of the same Rule states that 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 (Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No. 188289, 20
August 2014).

Sec. 26. Irremovability of public record

Sec. 27. Public record of a private document

The fact that the documents were certified as true copies of the original by
the PCGG does not enhance its admissibility. These documents have
remained private even if it is in the custody of the PCGG. What became
public are not the private documents (themselves) but the recording of it in
the PCGG. For, "while public records kept in the Philippines, of private
writings are also public documents...the public writing is not the writing
itself but the public record thereof. Stated otherwise, if a private writing itself
is inserted officially into a public record, its record, its recordation, or its
incorporation into the public record becomes a public document, but that
does not make the private writing itself a public document so as to make it
admissible without authentication (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, Tantoco Jr., G.R.
No. 18881, 21 April 2014)."

Proof of public records of private documents:

(a) The original record; (Rule 132, Sec. 27)
(b) Copy of the original record, attested by the legal custodian of the record,
with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (Rule
132, Sec. 27)

Sec. 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 (Rule 132, Sec. 28).

Sec. 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 (Rule
132, Sec. 29.).

Sec. 30. Proof of notarial documents

 63

Notarial documents 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 (Rule 132, Sec. 30).

Sec. 31. Alterations in document, how to explain

A party may show that an alteration was:

(a) made by another, without his concurrence;
(b) was made with the consent of the parties affected by it or was otherwise
properly or innocent made; or
(c) that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument
(Rule 132, Sec. 31).

Sec. 32. Seal

Sec. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language

C. Offer and Objection

Sec. 34. Offer of evidence

The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified (Rule 132,
Sec. 34).

The court considers the evidence only when it is formally offered.

The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the trial
court to base its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly
on the evidence offered by the parties. A piece of document will
remain a scrap of paper without probative value unless and until
admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for
which it is offered. The formal offer of evidence allows the parties
the chance to object to the presentation of an evidence which may
not be admissible for the purpose it is being offered (Laborte and
Philippine Tourism Authority v. Pagsanjan Tourism Consumers
Cooperative, G.R. No. 183860, 15 January 2014).
Requisites for evidence to be considered despite failure to formally
offer it: (1) duly identified by the testimony duly recorded, ad (2)
must have been incorporated in the records of the case (Laborte and
Philippine Tourism Authority v. Pagsanjan Tourism Consumers
Cooperative, G.R. No. 183860, 15 January 2014; Heirs of Serapio
Mabborang v. Mabborang, G.R. No. 182805, 22 April 2015).

Sec. 35. When to make offer

Testimonial evidence - must be offered at the time the witness is called to
testify.
Documentary and object evidence - must 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 (Rule 132, Sec. 35).
 64

Sec. 36. Objection

Rule: grounds for objections must always be specified. (Rule 132, Sec. 36, par.
4).
When to make objections:
(a) Testimonial evidence - must be objected to immediately after the offer is
made. (Rule 132, Sec. 36, par. 1).
(b) Objection to a question during oral examination - must be made as soon
as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent (Rule 132, Sec.
36, par. 2).
(c) Documentary evidence - shall be objected to within three (3) days after
notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court (Rule
132, Sec. 36, par. 3).

Sec. 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary

Repeating an objection is NOT necessary when it becomes reasonably
apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the questions
being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been
made, whether such objection was sustained or overruled. (Rule 132, Sec. 37).
In such case, it is sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing
objection to such class of questions. Rule 132, Sec. 37).

Sec. 38. Ruling

When made: Immediately after the objection is made.

Exception: Unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself
on the question presented (Note: 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).

Content of ruling: The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need

NOT be stated. (In contrast, objections made by lawyers must always specify
the grounds therefor.)
Exception: If 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.

Erroneous rulings on admissibility of evidence are:

(a) Considered errors in judgment, not of jurisdiction;
(b) Interlocutory in nature;
(c) May not be the subject of a separate appeal or review on certiorari;
(d) Must be assigned as errors and reviewed in the appeal properly taken
from the decision rendered by the trial court on the merits of the case.
(Triplex Enterprises, Inc. v. PNB-Republic Bank, et al. G.R.,No. 151007, 17 July
2006).

Sec. 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 the objection and order the
answer given to be stricken off the record (Rule 132, Sec. 39).
 65

On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers
which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper (Rule 132, Sec. 39).

Sec. 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. 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 (Rule 132, Sec. 40).

E. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Rule 133. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Sec. 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined

Preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases.
In determining preponderance of evidence, the court may consider:
All the facts and circumstances of the case;
The witnesses manner of testifying;
Their intelligence;
Their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they testify;
The probability or improbability of their testimony;
Their interest or want of interest;
Personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the
trial;
Number of witnesses (note preponderance is not necessarily equivalent
with the no. of witnesses).

Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

Proof beyond reasonable doubt - is that degree of proof which produces

conviction in an unprejudiced mind; required in criminal cases. Absolute
certainty is not required, only moral certainty.

Sec. 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction

An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, is not a sufficient ground for

conviction UNLESS corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (Rule 133, Sec.
3).

Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient

Requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction:

(a) There is more than 1 circumstance;
(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. (Rule 133, Sec. 4).
 66

Lest this statement be misunderstood, a finding of guilt is still

possible despite the absence of direct evidence. Conviction based on
circumstantial evidence may result if sufficient circumstances,
proven and taken together, create an unbroken chain leading to the
reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all
others, was the author of the crime (Almojuela v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 183202, 2 June 2014).

To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is

essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute
an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as
the guilty person. Stated differently, the test to determine whether
or not the circumstantial evidence on record is sufficient to convict
the accused is that the series of circumstances duly proven must be
consistent with each other and that each and every circumstance
must be consistent with the accuseds guilt and inconsistent with
his innocence (Atienza v. People, G.R. No. 188694, 12 February 2014).

The positive identification of the accused-appellant constitutes

direct evidence, and not merely circumstantial evidence (People v.
Bas, G.R. No. 195196, 13 July 2015).

Sec. 5. Substantial evidence

Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
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.

Clear and convincing evidence -- Evidence is clear and convincing if it

produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to
allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than
preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as required beyond
reasonable doubt in criminal cases (Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 227).

Sec. 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. (Rule 133, Sec. 6)

Sec. 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,
 67

but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral
testimony or depositions. (Rule 133, Sec. 7).
Examples of motions which require presentation of evidence:
Motion for bail;
Application for TRO/Injunction; or
Motion to dismiss.