Preliminary Considerations
Evidence
Preliminary Considerations
Rule 128 – General Provisions
Section 1 – EVIDENCE DEFINED
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact
Section 2 - SCOPE
The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and
in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided
by law or these rules.
• Evidence - mode and manner of proving competent facts
in judicial proceedings
• Proof - result or effect of evidence
» When the requisite quantum of evidence of a
particular fact has been duly admitted and given
weight
• Factum probandum – ultimate fact or fact sought to be
established
» proposition
• Factum probans – evidentiary fact or the fact by which
the factum probandum is to be established
» Materials which establishes the proposition
• Law on evidence – procedural law
» Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights (Sec 5 (5), Art VIII, Consti)
» New rules may be held applicable to cases pending
at the time of the change in rules as parties have no
vested right in the rules of evidence
▪ Except in criminal cases when the new rule
would permit reception of lesser quantum of
evidence to convict -> unconstitutional, ex
post facto
» Principally found in ROC
▪ Special laws: RA 4200, Code of Commerce Art
448, Civil Code, RPC Art 217
» Bill of Rights Sec 2 and 3
▪ See notes under Sec 33, Rule 130
▪ Right against self-incrimination cannot be
invoked in situations covered by immunity
statutes
• RA 1379 – immunity to witnesses in
proceedings for forfeiture of unlawfully
acquired property
• PD 749 – immunity in bribery and graft
cases
» Specifically applicable only in judicial proceedings
▪ Quasi-judicial: suppletory character whenever
practicable and convenient, except when the
governing law specifically adopts ROC
• Classification of evidence based on ROC:
1. Object – that which is directly addressed to the
senses of the court and consists of tangible things
exhibited or demonstrated in open court, in an
ocular inspection or at a place designated by the
court for its view or observation of an exhibition,
experiment or demonstration
▪ Autoptic proference – presenting in open court
the evidentiary articles for the observation or
inspection of the tribunal
2. Documentary evidence – evidence supplied by
written instruments or derived from conventional
symbols, such as letters, by which ideas are
represented on material substances
3. Testimonial – submitted to the court through the
testimony or deposition of a witness
• Other classifications
1. Relevant, Material, and Competent Evidence
a. Relevant – evidence having any value in
reason as tending to prove any matter
provable in an action
• Test of relevancy – logical relation of the
evidentiary fact to the fact in issue,
whether it tends to prove the probability
or improbability of the fact in issue
b. Material – evidence directed to prove a fact in
issue as determined by the rules of substantive
law and pleadings
azereth
page 1
• Materiality of evidence is determined by
WON the fact it tends to prove is in issue
c. Competent – one that is not excluded by the
Rules, law or Consti
2. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
a. Direct – that which proves the fact in dispute
without the aid of any inference or
presumption
b. Circumstantial – 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
3. Cumulative and Corroborative Evidence
a. Cumulative – evidence of the same kind and to
the same state of facts
b. Corroborative – additional evidence of a
different character to the same point
4. Prima facie and Conclusive Evidence
a. Prima facie – that which, standing alone,
unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to
maintain the proposition affirmed
b. Conclusive – that class of evidence which the
law does not allow to be contradicted
5. Primary and Secondary Evidence
a. Primary – or best evidence, that which the law
regards as affording the greatest certainty of
the fact in question
b. Secondary evidence – substitutionary
evidence, that which is inferior to the primary
evidence and is permitted by law only when
the best evidence is not available
6. Positive and Negative Evidence
a. Positive – when a witness affirms that a fact
did or did not occur
• Entitled to greater weight since witness
represents of his personal knowledge
b. Negative – witness states that he did not see
or know of the occurrence of a fact
• Total disclaimer of personal knowledge
Section 3 – ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the law or these rules
Section 4 – RELEVANCY; COLLATERAL MATTERS
Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,
except when it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability of the facts in issue
• Two requisites for admissibility:
1. Relevance – determinable by rules of logic and
human experience
▪ None but facts having rational probative value
are admissible (Wigmore)
2. Competence – determined by prevailing
exclusionary rules of evidence
▪ All facts having rational probative value are
admissible unless some specific rule forbids
their admission
» Therefore, admissibility is an affair of logic and law
• Admissibility – determined at the time it is offered to the
court
» Object evidence – offered when presented for the
court’s view or evaluation
» Testimonial – offered by the calling of the witness to
the stand
» Documentary – formally offered by the proponent
immediately before he rests his case
• Objection to the admissibility – made at the time such
evidence is offered or as soon as the objection to the
admissibility shall have become apparent
» Otherwise, waived
• 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
condition that the other facts will be proved thereafter,
otherwise the evidence will be stricken out
» Qualification: no bad faith on the part of the
proponent
Preliminary Considerations
Evidence
▪ Necessary to avoid unfair surprises to the
other party
• Multiple admissibility – where evidence is relevant and
competent for two or more purposes, such evidence
should be admitted for any and all the purposes for
which it is offered provided it satisfies all the
requirements of law for its admissibility
• Curative admissibility – treats upon the right of a party
to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where
the court has admitted the same kind of evidence of the
adverse party
» Theories:
1. American rule – admission of such incompetent
evidence, without objection by the opponent
does not justify such opponent in rebutting it
by similar incompetent evidence
2. English rule – if a party has presented
inadmissible evidence. The adverse party may
resort to similar incompetent evidence
3. Massachusetts rule – adverse party may be
permitted to introduce similar incompetent
evidence in order to avoid a plain and unfair
prejudice caused by the admission of the other
party’s
» To determine application:
1. WON incompetent evidence was reasonably
objected to, and
2. WON, regardless of the objection vel non, the
admission will cause a plain and unfair
prejudice to the party against whom it is
admitted
▪ Conversely, where admissible evidence has
been improperly excluded, the other party
should not be permitted to introduce similar
evidence (Martin)
• Former rule: illegally obtained evidence still admissible
unless specifically forbidden
» Abandoned in Stonehill vs. Diokno -> documentary
evidence, illegally obtained, is inadmissible on a
timely motion or action to suppress
• Collateral matters – matters other than the facts in issue
and which are offered as a basis for inference as to the
existence or non-existence of the facts in issue
» Irrelevant collateral matters inadmissible
» Circumstantial evidence – evidence of relevant
collateral facts
• Weight to evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial
evaluation (Rule 133 and jurisprudence)

azereth
page 2
What Need Not Be Proved
Evidence

What Need Not Be Proved An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case, does not
require proof. The admission may be contradicted only
by showing that it was made through palpable mistake
Rule 129 – What Need Not Be Proved or that no such admission was made.

Section 1 – JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN MANDATORY • Judicial admissions may be made in

A court shall take judicial notice, without the 1. Pleadings filed by the parties
introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial 2. The course of the trial, either by verbal or written
extent of states, their political history, forms of manifestations or stipulations
government and symbols of nationality, the law of 3. Other stages of the judicial proceeding
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world • Must be made in the same case in which it is offered
and their seals, the political constitution and history of » If made in another case or in another court – must
the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive be proved as in any other fact, but entitled greater
and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of weight
nature, the measure of time, and the geographical ▪ Admissible unless:
divisions. 1. Made only for purposes of the first case
2. Withdrawn with the permission of the
Section 2 – JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN DISCRETIONARY court
A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of 3. Court deems it proper to relieve the party
public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable • Admissions in a pleading which have been withdrawn or
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because supersede by an amended pleading
of their judicial functions. » Considered as extrajudicial admissions
» However, the rule seems now to include superseded
Section 3 – JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN HEARING pleadings as judicial admissions
NECESSARY
During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on Lim vs. Jabalde (1989)
request of a party, may announce its intention to take Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement entered into
judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be by the parties at the pre-trial of a case constitute judicial
heard thereon. admission by them which, under this section, do not require
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to
proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a have been made through palpable mistake.
party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow
the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is PCIB vs. Escolin (1974)
decisive of a material issue in the case. When the parties in a case agree on what the foreign
law provides, these are admissions of fact which the other
• Judicial notice – cognizance of certain facts which judges parties and the court are made to rely and act upon; hence
may properly take and act on without proof because they they are in estoppel to subsequently take a contrary position
already know them
» Based on considerations of expediency and
convenience
» May be taken by court on its own motion or when it
is requested by either parties
▪ Court will allow the parties to be heard on the
matter in question
» Must be exercised with caution and every
reasonable doubt on the subject must be resolved in
the negative
• Courts are required to take judicial notice of laws
» Different with ordinances:
▪ MTC – required to take judicial notice of
ordinances of the municipality or city wherein
they sit
▪ RTC – must take judicial notice only:
1. When required to do so by statute
2. In a case of appeal before them wherein
the inferior court took judicial notice of an
ordinance involved in said case
» Or when capable of unquestionable
demonstration (also applies with
administrative regulations)
• Courts are required to take judicial notice of the
decisions of appellate courts but not of the decisions of
coordinate courts
» Not even the decision or the facts involved in
another case tried by the same court itself
▪ Unless the parties introduce the same in
evidence or doing so is convenient
• Foreign laws – question of fact
» May not be taken judicial notice and have to be
proved
▪ Except: said laws are within the actual
knowledge of the court
» To prove written foreign law: follow requirements in
Sec 24-25, Rule 132
» May be subject of judicial admission
» Processual presumption - no proof nor admission,
foreign law presumed to be the same as that in the
Philippines
» To prove unwritten foreign law – Sec 46, Rule 130

Section 4 – JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

azereth
page 3
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence

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

Rule 130 – Rules of Admissibility
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
SECTION 1 - OBJECT AS EVIDENCE
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses
of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in
issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by
the court.
• Where object is relevant to a fact in issue, court may
acquire knowledge by:
1. Actually viewing the object – becomes object
evidence
2. Receiving testimonial evidence thereon
• The fact that an ocular inspection has been held does not
preclude a party from introducing other evidence on the
same issue
» Ocular inspection – lies within the discretion of the
court
▪ Invalid if conducted by a judge without notice
or presence of the parties
• Court may refuse introduction of object evidence and rely
on testimonial evidence alone if:
1. Exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy,
morals or decency
▪ But if view is necessary in the interest of
justice, 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 constitute the very basis for
the criminal or civil action
2. To require its being 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
3. Such object evidence would be confusing or
misleading
4. Testimonial or documentary evidence already
presented clearly portrays the object in question as
to render a view unnecessary
• 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)
» Includes:
1. Examination of the anatomy of a person or of
any substance taken therefrom
2. Conduct of tests, demonstrations,
experiments
3. Examination of representative portrayals of the
object in question
• Observations of the court may be amplified by
interpretations afforded by testimonial evidence,
especially be experts
• Documents are considered object evidence if the purpose
is to:
1. Prove their existence or condition or the nature
of the handwritings thereon
2. Determine the age of the paper used or the
blemishes or alterations thereon
» Otherwise, considered documentary evidence
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2 – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Documents as evidence consists of writings or any
material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expressions offered
as proof of their contents
1. BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Section 3 – ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MUST BE PRODUCED;
EXCEPTIONS
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original document itself, except in the following
cases:
cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on
the part of the offeror;
b. When the original is in the custody or under the
control of the party against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
c. When the original consists of numerous accounts
or other documents which cannot be examined in
court without great loss of time and the fact sought
to be established from them is only the general
result of the whole; and
d. When the original is public record in the custody of
a public officer or is recorded in a public office
Section 4 – ORIGINAL OF DOCUMENT
a. The original of a document is one the contents of
which are the subject of inquiry.
b. When a document is in two or more copies
executed at or about the same time, with identical
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as
originals.
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.
• Document – deed, instrument or other duly authorized
paper by which something is proved, evidenced, or set
forth
• Best Evidence Rule – rule of exclusion
» Secondary evidence cannot inceptively be
introduced as the original writing itself must be
produced in court
» Non-production of the original document, unless
justified under Sec 3, gives rise to the presumption
of suppression of evidence
» Applies only when the content of such document is
the subject of inquiry
» In criminal cases where the issue is not only with
respect to the contents of the document but also as
to whether such document actually existed with the
participation therein as imputed to the accused, the
original itself must be presented.
▪ Libel published in a newspaper: copy of said
newspaper
▪ Falsification of a document: original of the
document
» Does not apply if transactions have been recorded
in writing but the contents of such writing are not
the subject of inquiry
▪ Affidavits and depositions – strictly speaking,
or BER does not apply, but will not be admitted if
affiants or deponents are available as
witnesses
Mahilum vs. CA (1966)
A signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document
executed at the same time as the originals is known as a
duplicate original and may be introduced in evidence without
accounting for the non-production of the original.
People vs. Tan (105 Phil 1242)
With respect to documents prepared in several copies
through the use of carbon sheets, SC has held that each
carbon copy is considered an original provided that the writing
of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature
of the party sought to be charged thereby, produces a
facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus
reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the
surface or exposed impression
• However, even if said signature on each copy was written
through separate acts, all of carbon copies are regarded
as originals if each copy was intended as a repository of
the same legal act of the party thereto
• Imperfect carbon copies – merely secondary evidence
• Telegrams and cables – depends on the issue to be
proved
» Original dispatch – issue is the contents of the
telegram as received by the addressee
» Message delivered for transition – issue as to the
telegram sent by the sender

azereth
page 4
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
» Both – issue is the inaccuracy of the transmission Section 8 – PARTY WHO CALLS FOR DOCUMENT NOT
BOUND TO OFFER IT
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga vs. Reyes (55 Phil 905) A party who calls for the production of a document and
On the issue as to the contents of the articles sent by inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence
the accused for publication, the manuscript was the best
evidence; but on the issue as to what was actually published,
a copy of the newspaper publication was the best evidence.

2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE

Section 5 – WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS

UNAVAILABLE
When the original document has been lost or destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof
of its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove
its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in
some authentic document, or by the testimony of
witnesses in the order stated.

• Requisites: proof by satisfactory evidence of

1. Due execution of the original
▪ Proved through the testimony of either:
a. Person/s who executed it;
b. Person before whom its execution was
acknowledged; or
c. 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
2. Loss, destruction or unavailability of all such
originals, not due to bad faith
▪ Intentional destruction of the originals by a
party who, however, had acted in good faith
does not preclude his introduction of secondary
evidence of the contents thereof
▪ May be proved by any person who:
a. Knew of fact of loss or destruction
b. Had made a sufficient examination of the
places where the document or papers of
similar character are usually kept by the
person in whose custody the document
was and has been unable to find it
c. Has made any other investigation which is
sufficient to satisfy the court that the
document is indeed lost
3. Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search or
attempt to produce the original
» All duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for
before using copies thereof

De Vera vs. Aguilar (1993)

Since all the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the
writing to be proved, no excuse for non-production of the
document can be regarded as established until it appears that
all of its parts are unavailable

PNB vs. Olila (98 Phil 1002)

When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court,
as when it is in a foreign country, secondary evidence is
admissible

• Secondary evidence may consist of:

1. Copy of said document
2. Recital of its contents in an authentic document
3. Recollection of witnesses
» In this particular order
▪ Except when specifically required by law
• E.g. lost notarial will – testimony of at
least 2 credible witnesses
• Reconstitution – governed by Act 3110 + jurisprudence

Section 6 – WHEN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS IN

ADVERSE PARTY’S CUSTODY OR CONTROL
If the document is in the custody or under the control
of the adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to
produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory
proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of
its loss

azereth
page 5
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
• No particular form of notice is required De Guzman vs. Calma (100 Phil 1008)
» As long as it fairly appraises the other party as to Parol evidence is based upon the consideration that
what papers are desired when the parties have reduced their agreement on a particular
• Even oral demand in court is allowed matter into writing, all their previous and contemporaneous
» Made on a reasonable time agreements on the matter are merged therein
• Notice must be given to the adverse party or his counsel
even if papers is in the hands of a third person

Phil. Ready-Mix Concrete Co. vs. Villacorta, et al (98

Phil 993)
Where receipt of the original of a letter is acknowledged
on a carbon copy thereof, there is no need for a notice to the
other party to produce the original of the letter

• Remember: the duplicate copy, if complete is itself an

original copy
» Only issue: receipt of the original
• Justified refusal of the adverse party to produce the
document ≠ presumption of suppression of evidence
» Only authorizes the introduction of secondary
evidence
• Where such document is produced ≠ admissibility
» Requisites for admissibility must be present
• Production of evidence under Rule 130 ≠ Production of
evidence under Rule 27

Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. vs. Buenaflor (36 OG 3290)

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

• Third exception to BER – justified not only by the fact

that the records are voluminous but also because the
fatum probandum is just the general result of the whole
» For exception to apply
1. The voluminous character of the records must
be established
2. Such records must be made available to the
adverse party so that their correctness may be
tested on cross-examination
» Originals have to be produced if:
▪ Detailed contents of the records are challenged
for being hearsay1
▪ Issues are raised as to the authenticity or
correctness of the detailed entries

Section 7 – EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE WHEN ORIGINAL

DOCUMENT IS A PUBLIC RECORD
When the original of a document is in the custody of a
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

• Complements the 4th exception to BER

» See Rule 132 Sections 24 and 27

3. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Section 9 – EVIDENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS

When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to
writing, it is considered as containing all the terms
agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and
their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms
other than the contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify,
explain or add to the terms of written agreement if he
puts in issue in his pleading:
a. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in
the written agreement;
b. The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
c. The validity of the written agreement; or
d. The existence of other terms agreed to by the
parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.

1
US vs. Razon (37 Phil 856)

azereth
page 6
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
• Parol evidence – evidence aliunde (oral or written) • Latent ambiguity – when the writing on its face appears
» Intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters
and enforceable agreement embodied in a or circumstances which make the meaning uncertain
document
» Or where the writing admits of two constructions
• As long as they have been put into issue, parol evidence both of which are in harmony with the language
did not bar evidence of a collateral agreement in used6
instances where:
» Collateral agreement is not inconsistent with the
terms of the contract
» Collateral agreement has not been integrated in and
is independent of the written contract (suppletory to
the original document)
» Collateral agreement is subsequent to the written
contract
» Collateral agreement constitutes a condition
precedent which determines whether the written
contract may become effective
▪ Does not apply to a condition subsequent not
stated in the agreement
• Parol evidence does not apply where at least one party to
the suit is not a party or privy of a party to the written
agreement in question

Parol Evidence Best Evidence

Presupposes that the original Situation wherein the original

document is available in writing is not available and/or
court there is a dispute as to
whether said writing is
original

Prohibits the varying of the Prohibits the introduction of

terms of a written agreement substitutionary evidence in
lieu of the original document

Applies only documents that Applies to all kinds of writings

are contractual in nature

Can be invoked only when Can be invoked by any party

the controversy is between to the action
the parties to the written
agreement, their privies or
any party directly affected
thereby (cestui que trust)

• To be admissible, mistake or imperfection of the

document or its failure to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties, or the validity of the document
must be put in issue by the pleadings
» Plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint – cannot
introduce parol evidence
▪ But if defendant invoked such fact in his
answer, parol evidence may be introduced2
» However, even if not raised on the pleadings but
parol evidence is not objected to, objection deemed
waived
» Mistake or imperfection must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence3
• Mistake – refers to mistake of fact which is mutual to the
parties4
» Or where the innocent party was imposed upon by
unfair dealing of the other

CC Art. 1363
When one party was mistaken and the other knew
or believed that the instrument did not state their
real agreement, but concealed that fact from the
former, the instrument may be reformed.

• Failure to express true intent

» Purpose: enable the court to ascertain the true
intent of the parties5 or the true nature of their
agreement

2
PNR vs. CFI of Albay (1978)
3
Tolentino vs. Gonzales Sy Chiam (50 Phil 558)
4
BPI vs. Fidelity & Surety Co. (51 Phil 57)
5 6
Tolentino vs. Gonzales Sy Chiam (50 Phil 558) Ignacio vs. Rementeria (99 Phil 1054)

azereth
page 7
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Palanca vs. Fred Wilson & Co. (87 Phil 506)
The phrase “capacity of 6,000 liters” used in connection
with a distilling apparatus was held to be a latent
ambiguity which had to be clarified by parol evidence to
determine whether it meant receiving, treating, or the
producing capacity of the machine
• Patent ambiguity – extrinsic; such ambiguity which is
apparent on the face of the writing itself and requires
something to be added in order to ascertain the meaning
of the words used
» Parol evidence is not admissible
▪ Court would not be construing a contract, but
creating a contract for the parties
• Intermediate ambiguity – the words of the writing,
though seemingly clear and with a settled meaning, is
actually equivocal and admits of two interpretations7
» Example: “dollars” – may refer to currency of US or
HK or Australia
“Ton” – can be long ton, short ton, displacement
ton, freight ton or timber ton
» Parol evidence is admissible to clarify the ambiguity
• Remember: falsa demonstration non nocet cum de
corpore constat
» False description does not vitiate a document if the
subject is sufficiently identified
• No express trust concerning an immovable or any
interest therein may be proved by parol evidence
Section 10 - INTERPRETATION OF A WRITING
ACCORDING TO ITS LEGAL MEANING
The language of a writing is to be interpreted according
to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its
execution, unless the parties intended otherwise.
Section 11 - INSTRUMENT CONSTRUED SO AS TO GIVE
EFFECT TO ALL PROVISIONS
In the construction of an instrument, where there are
several provisions or particulars, such a construction is,
if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.
Section 12 - INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO
INTENTION; GENERAL AND PARTICULAR PROVISIONS
In the construction of an instrument, the intention of
the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and a
particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is
paramount to the former. So a particular intent will
control a general one that is inconsistent with it.
Section 13 - INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO
CIRCUMSTANCES
For the proper construction of an instrument, the
circumstances under which it was made, including the
situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it,
may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the
position of those whose language he is to interpret.
Section 14 - PECULIAR SIGNIFICATION OF TERMS
The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used
in their primary and general acceptation, but evidence
is admissible to show that they have a local, technical,
or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used
and understood in the particular instance, in which case
the agreement must be construed accordingly.
Section 15 - WRITTEN WORDS CONTROL PRINTED
When an instrument consists partly of written words
and partly of a printed form, and the two are
inconsistent, the former controls the latter.
Section 16 - EXPERTS AND INTERPRETERS TO BE USED
IN EXPLAINING CERTAIN WRITINGS
When the characters in which an instrument is written
are difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not
understood by the court, the evidence of persons skilled
in deciphering the characters, or who understand the
language, is admissible to declare the characters or the
meaning of the language.
7 oath
Referred to in American jurisprudence
azereth
page 8
Section 17 - OF TWO CONSTRUCTIONS, WHICH
PREFERRED
When the terms of an agreement have been intended in
a different sense by the different parties to it, that
sense is to prevail against either party in which he
supposed the other understood it, and when different
constructions of a provision are otherwise equally
proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable
to the party in whose favor the provision was made.
Section 18 - CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF NATURAL
RIGHT
When an instrument is equally susceptible of two
interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the
other against it, the former is to be adopted.
Section 19 - INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO USAGE
An instrument may be construed according to usage, in
order to determine its true character.
• Rules on interpretation
» For contracts: CC Articles 1370 to 1379
» For wills: CC Articles 788 to 794
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
1. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
Section 20 - WITNESSES; THEIR QUALIFICATIONS
Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all
persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
their known perception to others, may be witnesses.
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.
Section 21 - DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
MENTAL INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY
The following persons cannot be witnesses:
a. Those whose mental condition, at the time of
their production for examination, is such that
they are incapable of intelligently making
known their perception to others;
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.
• Qualifications/disqualifications of witnesses - determined
as of the time the witnesses are produced for
examination in court or at the taking of their depositions
» Children of tender years – take into account their
competence at the time of the occurrence to be
testified
• Interest in the subject matter – does not disqualify
» Affects only his credibility, not his competency
» Except: Dead Man’s Statute
• Defendant declared in default – not disqualified from
testifying fro his non-defaulting co-defendant
• Conviction of a crime – not ground for disqualification
» But must answer to the fact of a previous final
conviction as it may affect credibility
» Except: conviction of falsification of a document,
perjury or false testimony – disqualified from being
witnesses to a will, therefore cannot testify on
probate
• “Unsound mind” – any mental aberration whether
organic or functional or induced by drugs or hypnosis
» At the time of the testimony
» If at the time of the fact to be testifies – affects only
his credibility
People vs. De Jesus (1984)
As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or
signs and give sufficiently intelligent answers to questions
propounded, she is a competent witness even if she is feeble-
minded
• Or a mental retardate, or is a schizophrenic
• Requirements for deaf-mutes:
1. Can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
2. Can comprehend facts they are going to testify to
3. Can communicate their ideas through a qualified
interpreter
• Considerations for a child witness:
1. Capacity at the time the fact to be testified occurred
such that he could receive correct impressions
thereof
2. Capacity to comprehend the obligation of an oath
3. Capacity to relate those facts truly at the time he is
offered a witness
Section 22 – DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
MARRIAGE
During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife
may testify for or against the other without the consent
of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one
against the other, or in criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter’s
direct descendants and ascendants
• Called rule on marital disqualification or spousal
immunity
• Requisites:
1. Marriage is valid and existing as of the time of the
offer of testimony
2. The other spouse is a party to the action
• May be waived as in the case of other witnesses
generally
Lezama vs. Rodriguez (1968)
Where the wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging her
and her husband with collusive fraud, she cannot be called as
an adverse party witness under (Sec 10, Rule 132) as this will
violate the marital disqualification rule.
Section 23 – DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF DEATH
OR INSANITY OF ADVERSE PARTY
Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in
whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor
or administrator or other representative of a deceased
person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a
claim or demand against the estate of such deceased
person or a person of unsound mind, cannot testify as
to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such
deceased person or before such person became of
unsound mind
• Dead man statute
Marital Disqualification
Dead Man Statute
Rule
Partial disqualification Complete disqualification
• Disqualified only to testify
as matter of facts
occurring before the death
of deceased person or
before deceased person
became of unsound mind
Applies only to civil case or Applies to civil or criminal
special proceeding over the case
estate of deceased / insane
person
• Requisites:
1. Witness offered for examination is a party plaintiff,
or the assignor of said party, or a person in whose
behalf a case is prosecuted
▪ Plaintiff must be the real party in interest
▪ Not applicable to mere witnesses
▪ Assignor – one who transferred his interests in
a case
• Assignee – not disqualified
▪ Does not apply where a counterclaim has been
interposed by the defendant as the plaintiff
would thereby be testifying in his defense
▪ Also if deceased contracted through an agent
2. Case is against the executor or administrator or
representative of the deceased or insane person
azereth
page 9
▪ Necessary that defendant is being sued in his
representative capacity and not in individual
capacity
▪ If property involved has already been
adjudicated to the heirs, still protected –
considered as representatives of the deceased
▪ Applies whether the deceased died before or
after the suit was filed as long as he was dead
at the time the testimony is to be presented
3. Case is upon a claim or demand against the estate
of such deceased / insane person
▪ Does not apply where it is the administrator
who brought the action to recover property for
the estate
4. Testimony to be given is on a matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased person
or before such person became of unsound mind
▪ Negative testimony – testimony that the fact
did not occur during the lifetime of the
deceased – not covered
▪ Testimony of the present possession by the
witness of a written instrument signed by the
deceased is also not covered
• Ma’am: misleading because the document
contains acts of the deceased before he
died
• Does not apply to land registration cases or cadastral
cases
• Purpose: discourage perjury and protect the estate from
fictitious claim
• Prohibition does not apply despite meeting all
requirements if:
1. Testimony is offered to prove a claim less than what
is established under a written document
2. Testimony is intended to prove a fraudulent
transaction of the deceased, provided such fraud is
first established by evidence aliunde
• Disqualification waived:
1. Defendant does not timely object to the admission
of such evidence
2. Defendant testifies on the prohibited matters
3. Defendant cross-examines thereon
Section 24 – DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
The following persons cannot testify as to matters
learned in confidence in the following cases:
a. The husband or the wife, during or after the
marriage, cannot be examined without the consent
of the other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during the
marriage, except in a civil case by one against the
other or in a criminal case for a crime committed
by one against the other or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants;
b. An attorney cannot, without the consent of his
client, be examined as to any communication made
by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in
the course of, or with a view to professional
employment, nor can 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;
c. A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery
or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the
consent of the patient, be examined as to any
advice or treatment given by him or any
information which he may have acquired in
attending such patient in a professional capacity,
which information was necessary to enable him to
act in that capacity, and which would blacken the
reputation of the patient;
d. A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of
the person making the confession, be examined as
to any confession made to or any advice given by
him in his professional character in the course of
discipline enjoined by the church to which the
minister or priest belongs;
e. A public officer cannot be examined during his
term of office or afterwards, as to any
communications made to him in official confidence,
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
when the court finds that the public interest would Marital Privilege
suffer by the disclosure. • Requisites for marital privilege:
1. There was a valid marital relations
• Objections can only be made by the persons protected 2. Privilege was invoked with respect to a
and may be waived by the same persons expressly or confidential communication between the
impliedly spouses during the said marriage
3. Spouse against whom the testimony is given
did not give his/her consent
• Privilege cannot be claimed to confidential matters given
before the marriage
• Privilege cannot be invoked if the communication was not
intended to be confidential
• If third person heard the communication, such person is
not covered by the prohibition
» But if person is the agent of one spouse, covered by
the prohibition

Marital Privilege Marital Disqualification

Can be claimed WON the Can be invoked only if the

spouse is a party to the spouse is a party to the
action action

Can be claimed even after Can only apply if the

the marriage has been marriage is existing at the
dissolved time the testimony is offered

Applies only to confidential Constitutes a total prohibition

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

Attorney – Client Privilege

• Requisites:
1. There is an attorney-client relation
2. Privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential
communication between them in the course of
professional employment
3. Client has not given his consent to the disclosure of
the communication
• Attorney must have been consulted in his professional
capacity even if pro bono
• Preliminary communications made for the purpose of
creating attorney-client relationship are within the
privilege
• Communications include verbal statements, papers,
document or even actions
• Does not apply to communication:
1. Intended to be made public
2. Intended to be communicated to others
3. Intended for an unlawful purpose
4. Received from third persons not acting as agent of
the client
5. Made in the presence of third persons who are
strangers to the attorney-client relationship
• Period to be considered is that date when the
communication was made
» In determining whether past or future crime
» Communication having to do with a future crime is
not covered by the privilege
• If attorney is a co-conspirator to the crime, privilege not
applicable

Physician – Patient Privilege

• Requisites:
1. Physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery
or obstetrics
2. Information was acquired or the advice or treatment
was given by him in his professional capacity for the
purpose of treating or curing the patient
3. Information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would
blacken the reputation of the patient
4. Privilege is invoked in a civil case, whether the
patient is a party thereto or not
• Not necessary that the relationship was created by the
voluntary act of the patient – may have been acquired by
another
» E.g. patient in extremis
• Privilege extends to all forms of communication, advice
or treatment

azereth
page 10
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
» Includes information acquired by the physician » Can be invoked in any case against any of his
through his observations and examinations of the parents, direct descendants, children or direct
patient ascendants
• Does not apply where:
1. Communication not given in confidence
2. Communication is irrelevant to the professional
employment
3. Communication was made for an unlawful purpose
4. Information was intended to be made public
5. There was a waiver of the privilege either by
provisions of contract or law

Rule 28 PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF

PERSONS
Section 4 – WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE
By requesting and obtaining a report of the
examination so ordered or by taking the deposition
of the examiner, the party examined waives any
privilege he may have in that action or any other
involving the same controversy, regarding the
testimony of every other person who has examined
or may thereafter examine him in respect of the
same mental or physical examination

Minister/Priest – Penitent Privilege

• Requires that communication was made pursuant to a
religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline of the
sect or denomination
• Must be confidential in character
» E.g. under the seal of the confessional

Privileged Communications as to Public Officials

• Requisites:
1. It was made to the public officer in official
confidence
2. Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the
communication

Others
• RA 53, as amended by RA 1477
» Publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any
newspaper, magazine or periodical of general
circulation – cannot be compelled to revel the
source of any news report which was related to him
in confidence
» Unless the court or a House or committee of
Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by
the security of the State
• Article 233 of 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 the conciliators and similar officials
shall not testify in any court or body regarding the
matter taken up at the conciliation proceedings
conducted by them
• Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (RA 9285)
» Sec 9 (a) – Information obtained through mediation
shall be privileged and confidential

2. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE

Section 25 - PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE

No person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other
direct descendants.

• Disqualification by reason of relationship

• Filial privilege - not correctly a rule of disqualification, as
the descendant was not incompetent to testify against
his ascendants, but was actually a privilege not to testify

Art. 215, FC
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.

• Both parental and filial privileges are granted to any

person

azereth
page 11
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
3. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS » Does not include his testimony as a witness in court
» Cannot be considered self-serving if it was not made
Section 26 - ADMISSION OF A PARTY in anticipation of a future litigation
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. People vs. Bocasas (1985)
Flight from justice is an admission by conduct and
• Admission – any statement of fact made by a party circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt
against his interest or unfavorable to the conclusion for
which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts • The act of repairing a machine, bridge or other facility
alleged by him after an injury has been sustained therein is not an
implied admission of negligence by conduct
» Merely a measure of extreme caution
Admissions Confessions
Section 27 - OFFER OF COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSIBLE
Statement of fact which does Involves an
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
not involve an acknowledgement of guilt or
admission of any liability, and is not admissible in
acknowledgement of guilt or liability
evidence against the offeror.
liability
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses
(criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
May be express or tacit Must be express
compromised, an offer of compromised by the accused
may be received in evidence as an implied admission of
May be made by third Can be made only by the
guilt.
persons and, in certain cases, party himself and, in certain
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer
are admissible against a cases, are admissible against
of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in
party his co-accused
evidence against the accused who made the plea or
offer.
• To be admissible, an admission must: An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or
1. Involve matters of fact, not of law other expenses occasioned by an injury is not
2. Be categorical and definite admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal
3. Be knowingly and voluntarily made liability for the injury.
4. Be adverse to the admitter’s interest
▪ Otherwise would be self-serving and • Offer of compromise (civil case) – not a tacit admission
inadmissible of liability and cannot be proved over the objection of the
• Judicial admission – one made in connection with a offeror
judicial proceeding in which it is offered • Offer of compromise (criminal case) – implied admission
• Extrajudicial admission – any other admission of guilt
» But accused is permitted to prove that offer was not
People vs. Aling (1980) made under consciousness of guilt but merely to
Facts: Norija Mohamad was stabbed in the chest and avoid risks of criminal action against him
diaphragm and she died two days later in the hospital. Girlie • Offer of compromise (violation of internal revenue law) –
Aling and Norija’s daughter Daria brought Norija to the not admissible in evidence
hospital. They learned from the police that Norija was stabbed
by her husband Airol Aling. Aling was investigated by the People vs. Amiscua (1971)
police and he declared in Chavacano dialect that he killed his In a rape case, an offer to compromise for a monetary
wife because he was informed in prison by his relatives that consideration, and not to marry the victim, is an implied
his wife was fooling around with other men. Aling was charged admission of guilt
with parricide and during arraignment, he pleaded guilty
although he had no lawyer. A counsel de oficio was appointed People vs. Manzano (1982)
for him. When he was again arraigned, he pleaded guilty with In a rape case, the attempt of the parents of the
the assistance of counsel. Aling was placed on the witness accused to settle the case with the complainant was
stand and examined by his counsel and after being informed considered an implied admission of guilt.
that the penalty for parricide is death or life imprisonment,
Aling still admitted killing his wife. People vs. Valdez (1987)
Issue: WON the marriage of Aling and Norija was proven An offer of marriage by the accused during the
Held: Yes investigation of the rape case is also an admission of guilt
Ratio: The testimony of Aling that he was married to Norija is
an admission against his penal interest. It was a confirmation • Criminal cases involving criminal negligence or quasi-
of the maxim simper praesumitur matrimonio and the offenses are allowed to be compromised, hence an offer
presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves of settlement is not an admission of guilt
to be husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of • Offer to pay or the actual payment of medical bills by
marriage. reason of victim’s injuries – not admissible to prove civil
or criminal liability
Admissions Declarations Against
Section 28 - ADMISSION BY THIRD PARTY
Interest
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as
Need not be made against Must have been made against
hereinafter provided.
the proprietary or pecuniary the proprietary or pecuniary
interest of the parties interest of the parties
• First branch of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
But if so made, it will greatly
• Exceptions: third person is a partner, agent, or has joint
enhance its probative weight
interest with the party, or is a co-conspirator or a privy
of the party
Made by the party himself, Must have been made by the
and, is a primary evidence person who is either
People vs. Valero (1982)
and competent though he be deceased or unable to testify
Facts: Michael and Annabel, children of Ceferino Velasco, died
present in court and ready to
of poisoning after eating bread containing endrin, a
testify
commercial insecticide. Their sister Imelda would have also
died if not for the timely medical assistance given to her. At
Can be made anytime Made ante litem motam
about the same time, 3 puppies of Velasco under the balcony
where the children ate the bread also died of poisoning.
• Self-serving declaration – one which has been made Earlier that morning, Velasco was seen throwing poisoned rats
extrajudicially by a party to favor his interests in the river near his house.
» Not admissible in evidence

azereth
page 12
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
The evidence of the prosecution shows that the poisoned
bread was given to the children by Alfonso Valero alias Pipe,
deaf-mute brother of accused Lucila Valero, and that it was
Lucila who gave Alfonso the bread to be delivered to the
children. Lucila denies the allegation. The evidence of the
defense tends to show that the children might have eaten one
of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in poisoning
the rats.
3/9 witnesses for the prosecution:
1. Rodolfo Quilang – testified that he saw Lucila deliver
something wrapped in a piece of paper to Alfonso and
instructed him by sign language to deliver the same to
the Velasco children. He never saw what was inside the
piece of paper. His testimony as to WON he saw the
parcel delivered to the children was a series of
contradictions. He is what the defense counsel calls and
“eleventh-hour witness
2. Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco – did not see Lucila
deliver to Alfonso the alleged parcel, as well as the
alleged instruction. Both claimed that they learned the
information from Pipe after interviewing him by means of
sign language. Testimony of Jaime was confusing. There
is nothing in the testimony of Velasco indicating that
Alfonso pointed to Lucila as the source of the poisoned
bread.
Issue: WON the testimonies of Jaime and Velasco may be
admitted
Held: No
Ratio: The evidence is pure hearsay. It violates the principle
of res inter alios acta. Alfonso, who was the source of the
information, was never presented as a witness either for the
defense or the prosecution. Testimony of Velasco cannot be
considered as part of res gestae because when the
information was allegedly obtained by Velasco from Alfonso,
nobody was poisoned yet. With regard to the testimony of
Jaime, there is no showing that the revelation was made by
Alfonso under the influence of a startling occurrence.
The failure of the defense counsel to object to the
presentation of incompetent evidence does not give such
evidence probative value. The lack of objection may make any
incompetent evidence admissible. But admissibility of
evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence.
Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative
value
Section 29 - ADMISSION BY CO-PARTNER OR AGENT
The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party
within the scope of his authority and during the
existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in
evidence against such party after the partnership or
agency is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. The same rule applies to the act or
declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other
person jointly interested with the party.
• Requisites:
1. That the partnership, agency or joint interest is
established by evidence other than the act or
declaration
2. That the act/declaration must have been within the
scope of the partnership, etc.
3. Such act/declaration must have been made during
the existence of the partnership, etc.
• Admissions made in connection with the winding up –
still admissible
• Admission by counsel – admissible against client (agent-
principal)
» Limitation:
1. admission should not amount to a compromise
2. admission should not amount to a confession
of judgment
Jaucian vs. Querol
The phrase joint debtor does not refer to a mere
community of interest but should be understood according to
its meaning in the common law system from which the
provision was taken, that is, in solidum, and not
mancomunada
• 1st exception to Section 28
• Word omission in Section 28 doesn't appear here
azereth
page 13
» Because if it was, can become vague (same as with
Section 30)
» It only appears in Section 31: admission by privies
 What predecessors didn't do is binding on you
= this is the rationale in including the word
omission in Section 31
• GR: admission of some1 else shouldn't be taken against
you
• But Section 29 is an exception: admission of another can
be taken against you – fair?
Section 30 - ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR
The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the
conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in
evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of
declaration.
People vs. Serrano
This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or statements
and not to testimony given on the witness stand at the trial
where the party adversely affected thereby has the
opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
An admission by a conspirator is admissible against his
co-conspirator if:
1. Such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde
2. Admission was made during the existence of the
conspiracy
3. Admission relates to the conspiracy itself
These are not required in admissions during the trial as the
co-accused can examine the declarant.
• Judicial admissions - admissions after the conspiracy has
ended
• Existence of conspiracy may be inferred from
1. Acts of the accused
2. Confessions of the accused
3. By prima facie proof thereof
People vs. Alegre (1976)
Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged
conspiracy, the extrajudicial confession of an accused cannot
be used against his co-accused as the res inter alios rule
applies to both extrajudicial confessions and admissions
• Extrajudicial admission made by a conspirator after the
conspiracy has ended and even before trial – not
admissible against co-conspirator
» Except:
1. If made in the presence of the co-
conspirator who expressly or impliedly
(tacit admission, Rule 130.32) agreed
therein
2. Where the facts stated in the said
admissions are confirmed in the individual
extrajudicial confessions made by the co-
conspirators after their apprehension
3. as a circumstance to determine the
credibility of a witness
4. as circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of the co-conspirator’s
participation in the offense
People vs. Ola (1987)
In order that the extrajudicial statements of a co-
accused may be taken into consideration in judging the
testimony of a witness, it is necessary that the statements are
made by several accused, the same are in all material
respects identical, and there could have been no collusion
among said co-accused in making such statements.
Section 31 - ADMISSION BY PRIVIES
Where one derives title to property from another, the
act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding
the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against
the former.
• Requisites:
1. There must be a relation of privity between the
party and the declarant
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
2. The admission was made by the declarant, as
predecessor in interest, while holding title to the
property
3. The admission is in relation to said property
• Privity in estate may have arisen by succession, by acts
mortis causa or by acts inter vivos
Section 32 - ADMISSION BY SILENCE
An act or declaration made in the presence and within
the hearing or observation of a party who does or says
nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally
to call for action or comment if not true, and when
proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in
evidence against him.

• Requisites to be admissible against a party:

1. He must have heard or observed the act or
declaration of the other person
2. He must have had the opportunity to deny it
3. He must understood the statement
4. He must have an interest to object, such that he
would naturally have done so, if the statement was
not true
5. The facts were within his knowledge
6. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from
his silence is material to the issue
• Applies where a person is surprised or even if he is
already in the custody of the police
» Voluntary participation in the reenactment of the
crime conducted by police is considered tacit
admission of complicity
▪ But to be given weight, the validity and
efficacy of the confession must first be shown

Section 12, Article III, 1987 Constitution

1. Any person under investigation for the commission
of an offense shall have the right to be informed of
his right to remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These
rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel.
2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or
any other means which vitiate free will shall be
used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
are prohibited
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation
of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions
for violations of this section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices and their families.

Section 17, Article III, 1987 Constitution

No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself

• Rule does not apply:

» if the statements adverse to the party were made
in the course of an official investigation
» Or where the party had a justifiable reason to
remain silent (e.g. acting on advice of counsel)
• Keep in mind that a person under investigation for the
commission of a crime has the right to remain silent and
to be informed of that right
• Rule applies to adverse statements in writing if the party
was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the
declarant
» If no such mutual correspondence, rule is relaxed
▪ Theory: a prompt response can generally not
be expected if the party still has to resort to a
written reply, as opposed to a statement orally
made

Section 33 – CONFESSION
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt
of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily
included therein, may be given in evidence against him.

• Confession – categorical acknowledgement of guilt made

by an accused in a criminal case, without any
exculpatory statement or explanation
» If there is an allegation of a justification for the act,
merely an admission
• Confession of judgment – made in a civil case where the
party expressly admits his liability
• Confession can be made orally or in writing

azereth
page 14
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
» Ii in writhing – need not be under oath
• Judicial confession – one made before a court in which
the case is pending and in the course of legal
proceedings therein
» By itself, can sustain a conviction
• Extrajudicial confession – one made in any other place or
occasion and cannot sustain a conviction unless
corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti

Rule 133, Section 3 - EXTRAJUDICIAL

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

• Requisites for admissibility

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

People vs. Garcia (101 Phil 615)

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

• Indicia of voluntariness of confession

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

Section 20, Article IV, 1973 Constitution

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

• If confession obtained before effectivity of 1973

Constitution (17 Jan 1973), admissible even without
informing the accused of his right to remain silent

azereth
page 15
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Draculan vs. Donato (1978)
Where, before the statement containing the extrajudicial
confession of guilt was taken, the accused was asked whether
he was familiar with the provisions of Sec 20, Art IV, 1973
Constitution and he answered in the affirmative, and the
statement which he signed states that he had been apprised
of his constitutional rights with the warning that anything he
would say might be used against him in court, such
extrajudicial confession is admissible
People vs. Tampus (1980)
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 vs. Felipe (1981)
Where the accused was merely told of his constitutional
rights and asked if he understood what he was told, but he
was never asked whether he wanted to exercise or avail
himself of such rights, his extrajudicial confession is
inadmissible
People vs. Broqueza (1988)
Where the extrajudicial confession of the accused while
under custodial investigation was merely prefaced by the
investigator with a statement of his constitutional rights, to
which he answered that he was going to tell the truth, the
same is inadmissible as his answer does not constitute a
waiver of his right to counsel and he was not assisted by one
when he signed the confession. His short answer does not
show that he knew the legal significance of what were asked
of him
Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile (1983)
The waiver of the right to counsel during custodial
investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel
• Requirement is now embodied in the 1987 Constitution
People vs. Jara (1986)
Where a confession was illegally obtained from two of
the accused and, consequently, are not admissible as against
them, with much more reason should the same be
inadmissible against a third accused who had no participation
therein
• Promise of immunity or leniency vitiates a confession if
given by the offended party or by the fiscal
» Not if given by a person whom the accused could
not have reasonably expected to be able to comply
with such promise (e.g. investigator who is not a
prosecuting officer) or could not bind the offended
party which was a corporation
US vs. Mercado (6 Phil 332)
Where the accused voluntarily made a second
extrajudicial confession after he has been maltreated in order
to extort the first confession, such second confession is
admissible only if it can be proved that he was already
relieved of the fear generated by the previous maltreatment
• Entire confession must be admitted in evidence
» But court may, in appreciating it, reject such
portions as are incredible
Camasura vs. Provost Marshal (78 Phil 131)
Where the extrajudicial confession was obtained by
maltreatment, the judgment based solely thereon is null and
void and the accused may obtain his release on a writ of
habeas corpus
• The extrajudicial confession of an accused is binding only
upon him and is not admissible against his co-accused
» Except if:
1) Co-accused impliedly adopted said confession
by not questioning its truthfulness
2) Interlocking confessions – accused persons
voluntarily and independently executed
identical confessions without conclusion,
• which confessions are corroborated by
other evidence and not contradicted by
the co-accused who was present
azereth
page 16
3) Accused admitted the facts stated in the
confession after being apprised of such
confession
4) Charged as co-conspirators and confession is
used only as corroborating evidence
5) Confession is used as circumstantial evidence
to show the probability of participation by the
co-conspirator
6) Confessant testified fro his co-defendant
7) Co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is
corroborated by other evidence of record
• Confession of the accused admissible not only with
respect to the offense charged but also any offense
necessarily included therein
• 1987 Constitution – illegal confessions and admissions
are inadmissible against confessant or admitter
» But admissible against the person who violated the
constitutional provision against obtaining illegal
confessions or admissions
People vs. Domantay (1999)
Facts: The body of six year old Jennifer Domantay, bearing
several stab wounds, was found sprawled amidst a bamboo
grove. The investigation by the police pointed to Bernardino
Domantay, cousin of the victim’s grandfather, as the lone
suspect in the crime. Police officers (Montemayor, De la Cruz
and De Guzman) picked up Domantay at the public market
and took him to the police station. Upon questioning by SPO1
Espinoza, Domantay confessed to the killing of Jennifer. He
also said that he had given the bayonet he used in the killing
to Casingal spouses, his aunt and uncle. The next day, SPO1
Espinoza and another policeman took Domantay to the
Casingal spouses where they recovered the bayonet.
The prosecution presented 7 witnesses:
1. Edward Domantay – testified that in the morning of the
incident, he was drinking with Caballero, Macasaeb and
Domantay. There, Domantay rolled up his shirt and said
that he will massacre somebody in their place. Edward
saw that tucked in the left side of Domantay’s waistline
was a bayonet without a cover handle. Edward has seen
that bayonet being carried by Domantay many times.
2. Jiezl Domantay (10 years old) – testified that at about
2pm, she saw Domantay and Jennifer walking towards
the bamboo grove where the body of Jennifer was later
found. Domantay was about 2 meters ahead of Jennifer.
3. Lorenzo Domantay – corroborated Jennifer’s testimony.
He said that he saw Domantay standing at the spot in
the bamboo grove where Jennifer’s body was later found.
Domantay appears restless and worried as he kept
looking around. Lorenzo was in a hurry and did not try to
find out why Domantay was restless.
4. Joselito Mejia – a tricycle driver. He said that when he
was about to take his lunch, Domantay approached him
and implored him to take him (Domantay) to Malasiqui at
once. Mejia said he will first take his lunch. Domantay
pleaded with him and said that they will not be long so
Mejia agreed. Domantay alighted near the Mormon
church outside Malasiqui, instead of the town proper
5. SPO1 Antonio Espinoza – testified that he investigated
the case. Before questioning Domantay, he appraised the
latter of his constitutional right to remain silent and to
have a competent and independent counsel, in English,
which was later translated into Pangasinense. Domantay
agreed to answer the questions even in the absence of
counsel and admitted to the killing of Jennifer. Domantay
also disclosed the location of the bayonet he used.
(Cross-examination) Espinoza admitted that Domantay
was not assisted by counsel during the course of the
questioning. Neither was Domantay’s statement reduced
into writing. This testimony was admitted over the
objection of the defense.
6. Celso Manuel – radio reporter of DWPR. He interviewed
Domantay who was then detained in the municipal jail.
He introduced himself as a media reporter to Domantay.
He said that Domantay was willing to state what
happened. When he asked Domantay if he committed the
crime, Domantay said yes. Domantay also said that he
killed Jennifer in his revenge for a boundary dispute and
that he is willing to accept his punishment. (Cross)
Manuel explained that the interview was conducted in the
jail, 2-3 meters away from the police station. An uncle of
Jennifer was with him. The nearest policeman was 2-3
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
meters away. There was no lawyer present and it was
the first time that he was called to testify regarding an
interview he conducted. This testimony was admitted
over the objection of the defense
7. Dr. Ronald Bandonill – conducted an autopsy of the
victim.
Defense presented Domantay as its lone witness. Domantay
denied the allegations against him. He denied Edward’s claim.
He admitted that he passed the bamboo grove but said that
he did not know that Jennifer was following him. He admitted
hiring Mejia to get to Malasiqui to meet his brother, who did
not come. He denied confessing to SPO1 Espinoza and he
denied having a grudge against Jennifer’s parents because of
a boundary dispute. He admitted being interviewed by Manuel
but denied ever admitting anything to the reporter.
Domantay was convicted by the trial court
Issue: WON the extrajudicial confessions made by Domantay
to SPO1 Espinoza and Manuel are admissible
Held: No and Yes, respectively
Ratio: Art III, Sec 12 of the 1987 Constitution applies to
custodial investigation, when the investigation is no longer a
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a
particular person as a suspect. RA 7438 extended the
constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual
has not been formally arrested but has merely been “invited”
for questioning.
Requirements for admissibility of extrajudicial confessions:
1. It must be voluntary
2. It must be made with the assistance of a competent and
independent counsel
3. It must be express
4. It must be in writing
When Domantay was brought to the police station he was
already under custodial investigation and the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution apply to him. Even though he
waived the assistance of counsel, the waiver was not put into
writing nor made in the presence of counsel. Therefore the
waiver is invalid and the confession is inadmissible. The
bayonet is also inadmissible in evidence as it was a “fruit of a
poisonous tree”.
Domantay’s confession to Manuel is admissible. The Bill of
Rights does not concern itself with the relation between
private individuals. The prohibitions therein are primarily
addressed to the State and its agents.
Domantay claims that the atmosphere during the interview
was tense and intimidating. The Court does not agree. There
is no indication that the presence of the police officers exerted
any undue pressure or influence on Domantay and coerced
him into giving his confession. There is also no evidence that
Manuel was a police beat reporter and it has not been shown
that his purpose in conducting the interview was to elicit
incriminating information from Domantay.
Domantay’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti, as required by Rule 133, Sec 3.
People vs. Mantung (1999)
Facts: Maribel Mayola and Renjie Balderas were found dead
inside the vault room of the Maywood branch of Cebuana
Lhuiller where they were employed. The jewelries kept inside
the safe were all gone and the cash drawer had been emptied
of its contents. In the counter, a holster was placed on top of
a letter addressed to Mary Ann Gordoncillo, district manager
of Cebuana Lhuiller. The letter was written by Guiamad
Mantung, the security guard assigned to the branch. Mantung
wrote in Filipino that he killed Mayola and Balderas because
they gave him pork which his Moslem religion prohibited him
from eating. He also admitted taking the cash and jewelry
inside the vault, claiming that he needed the money. He wrote
another letter addressed to his wife, which was found in the
office logbook. Mantung was later arrested in Sultan Kudarat,
Cotabato and several pieces of jewelry believed to be part of
the loot were recovered from him. After his arrest, he was
immediate brought to Paramour where he was presented to
the media at a press conference called by Mayor Joey
Marquez. When Mayor Marquez then asked him if he is the
one who killed the two employees, Mantung answered yes and
said that he killed the victims because they induced him to eat
pork. The news about Manton’s admission to the killings
appeared in the Inquirer and Manila Bulletin the following day.
Clippings of these reports were presented as evidence by the
prosecution during the trial.
The defense presented the lone testimony of Mantung to
substantiate his claims of innocence. He claimed that on the
azereth
page 17
day of the incident, he was locking one of the doors of the
shop when 3 men approached him from behind and one of
them held him at gunpoint. Mayola and Balderas saw what
was happening and shouted for help. Mantung was taken to
the comfort room when he heard 2 gunshots and the shouts of
Mayola and Balderas stopped. The men took him out, pushed
him inside a red car and blindfolded him. Afterwards, he felt
the car stop and he was left alone by his captors. He then
seized the opportunity to escape. He saw that they stopped in
the pier so he mingled with the people and boarded a ship to
Cebu and from there went to Cotabato. He denied that pieces
of jewelry were recovered from him. He refuted the reports
saying he admitted to the killing of the victims in the press
conference. According to him, he did not tell anyone what
happened because he was confused and he did not know what
to do.
Issue1: WON Mantung’s admission during the press
conference is admissible
Held1: Yes
Ratio1: The clippings of the news articles reporting Mantung’s
confession is hearsay because their writers were not
presented to affirm the veracity of the reports. However,
Ricardo Diago, an employee of Cebuana Lhuiller present
during the press conference, was presented as rebuttal
witness to prove that Mantung indeed claimed responsibility
for the killings.
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 vs. Andan).
There is nothing to show that Mantung’s admission was
coerced or made under duress.
Ladiana vs. People (2002)
Facts: Josue Ladiana, a police officer, was accused of killing
Francisco San Juan, a Barangay Captain. The case was filed in
the Sandiganbayan and Ladiana was found guilty of homicide.
The prosecution presented 5 witnesses:
1. Caridad San Juan – wife of the victim. She testified that
San Juan was the Barangay Captain of Brgy. Salac,
Lumban, Laguna. She said that she was in her house
when an unidentified woman came and told her that her
husband was killed by Ladiana. She also presented the
death certificate of her husband. (Cross) She admitted
that she did not witness the killing of her husband.
2. PO2 Leopoldo Cacalda Jr. – He recounted that somebody
whose name he could not recall reported to him about an
existing trouble in the scene of the incident. He
responded by going to the scene, accompanied by
another person. There, he saw the dead body of San
Juan. He gathered from the people milling around the
body that it was Ladiana who killed San Juan. He
immediately left to look for Ladiana. He later learned that
Ladiana surrendered to the police. (Cross) He testified
that he did not witness the incident. He also said that it
was the people around the incident who told him that
Ladiana already left. He also saw a stab wound on
Ladiana’s right bicep but he did not ask him how he got
it.
3. Dr. Rogelio Javan – performed the necropsy
4. SPO2 Percival Gabinete – his testimony was dispensed
with upon the admission of the defense that he was part
of the group that responded to the incident
5. Mario Cortez – retired Assistant Prosecutor of Laguna.
Prior to the conduct of examination-in-chief of Cortez,
defense counsel admitted to the authorship, authenticity,
and voluntariness of the execution of the counter-
affidavit of Ladiana. In the counter-affidavit, Ladiana
admitted shooting Francisco but he allegedly did so in
self-defense as Francisco was then attacking Ladiana and
had in fact already inflicted a stab wound on the arm of
Ladiana. Cortez emphasized that he was not the one who
conducted the PI. He also said that he would not be able
to recognize the face of the affiant in the counter-
affidavit but maintained that there was a person who
appeared and identified himself as Josue Ladiana before
him.
Defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Issue: WON the counter-affidavit executed by Ladiana during
the preliminary investigation is admissible although no counsel
was present when he executed it
Held: Yes
Ratio: The constitutional guarantee applies only during
custodial investigations. Custodial investigation is the
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
freedom of action in any significant way.
The Court held that the right to counsel does not extend to
PIs. A PI is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is
probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. A person
undergoing PI before a public prosecutor cannot be considered
as being under custodial investigation.
However, the accused possesses rights that must be
safeguarded:
1. Right to refuse to be made witness
2. Right not to have any prejudice whatsoever imputed to
him by such refusal
3. Right to testify on his own behalf, subject to cross-
examination by the prosecution
4. While testifying, the right to refuse to answer a specific
question that tends to incriminate him for some crime
other than that for which he is being prosecuted
Ladiana’s counter-affidavit is not an extrajudicial confession, it
is only an admission. In confession, there is an
acknowledgement of guilt. In an admission, there is merely a
statement of fact not directly involving an acknowledgement
of guilt or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which
one is charged. In the counter-affidavit, Ladiana admits
shooting San Juan but denies having done it with criminal
intent since he claimed that it was done in self-defense.
There is no doubt as to the voluntariness of the counter-
affidavit. The admissions of Ladiana made through his counsel
during the trial are very clear.
In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their
untruth or by showing that they were made by mistake.
Ladiana never offered any rationalization why he made the
admission.
4. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
Section 34 – SIMILAR ACTS AS EVIDENCE
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at
one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did
not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it
may be received to prove a specific intent or
knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,
custom or usage, and the like.
• Second branch of res inter alios acta
» Applies to both criminal and civil cases
» Strictly enforced in all cases applicable
• Exceptions to the rule: evidence of similar acts may
prove
1. Specific intent or knowledge
2. Identity
3. Plan, system or scheme
4. Specific habit
5. Established customs, usages and the like
• Evidence of another crime is admissible in a prosecution
for robbery where it has the tendency to identify the
accused or show his presence at the scene of the crime
» But not where the evidence is to prove that he
committed another crime wholly independent of that
for which he is on trial
• Previous acts of negligence is admissible to show
knowledge or intent
Section 35 – UNACCEPTED OFFER
An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or
to deliver a written instrument or specific personal
property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent
to the actual production and tender of the money,
instrument or property
• Merely evidentiary complement to the rule on payment
• Such tender of payment must be followed by
consignation of the amount in court in order to produce
the effects of valid payment
azereth
page 18
5. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
Section 36 – TESTIMONY GENERALLY CONFINED TO
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE; HEARSAY EXCLUDED
A witness can testify only to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception, except as otherwise
provided in these rules.
• 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
» Excluded because the party against whom it is
presented is deprived of the right to cross-examine
the persons to whom the statements or writings are
attributed
» If a party does not object – admissible
Savory Luncheonette vs. Lakas ng Manggagawang
Pilipino (1975)
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
People vs. Cusi, Jr. (1965)
Facts: Arcadio Puesca, Walter Apa, Jose Gustilo, Filomeno
Macalinao, Ricardo Dario and Magno Montano were charged
with robbery in band with homicide.
During trial, while Sgt. Bano was testifying as prosecution
witness regarding the extrajudicial confession made to him by
Puesca, he said that Puesca admitted his participation in the
offense and revealed the name of other persons who
conspired with him. Counsel for Macalinao, Gustilo and Dario
objected to the naming of the co-conspirators. Trial judge
resolved the objection directing the witness to name the co-
conspirators other than the 3 objectors.
Issue: WON the witness should be allowed to name all the
conspirators as stated to him by Puesca
Held: Yes
Ratio: While the testimony of a witness regarding a statement
made by another person, if intended to establish the truth of
the facts asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay
evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the
statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the
statement was made or the tenor of such statement.
For the limited purpose of establishing the fact that Puesca
mentioned the names of his co-conspirators, the evidence
should be admitted but with the understanding that the
testimony shall not be taken as competent evidence to show
that the persons named really and actually conspired with
Puesca.
• But even if hearsay evidence not objected to is
admissible, it has no probative value and as opposed to
direct primary evidence, the latter always prevails
Section 28, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
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 the motion of
the adverse party, require the child to be
present at the presentation of the hearsay
statement for cross-examination by the
adverse party. When the child is unavailable,
the fact of such circumstance must be proved
by the proponent
b. In ruling on the admissibility of such
hearsay statement, the court shall consider
the time content and circumstances thereof
which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. It
shall consider the following factors:
1. Whether there is motive to lie;
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
2. The general character of the declarant impending death and as long as no retraction was made
child; by the declarant before his death
3. Whether more than one person heard
the statement;
4. Whether the statement was
spontaneous;
5. The timing of the statement and the
relationship between the declarant child
and witness;
6. Cross-examination could not show the
lack of knowledge of the declarant child;
7. The possibility of faulty recollection of
declarant child is remote; and
8. The circumstances surrounding the
statement are such that there is no reason
to suppose the declarant child
misinterpreted the involvement of the
accused.
c.The child witness shall be considered
unavailable under the following situations:
1. Is deceased, suffers from physical
infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness,
or will be exposed to severe psychological
injury; or
2. Is absent from the hearing and the
proponent of his statement has been
unable to procure his attendance by
process or other reasonable means.
d. When the child witness is unavailable,
his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if
corroborated by other admissible evidence.

• Not covered by hearsay rule - where the statements or

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

People vs. Arguel (1980)

Newspaper clippings or facts published in the
newspapers are hearsay and have no evidentiary value unless
substantiated by persons with personal knowledge of said
facts

6. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE

Dying Declaration

Section 37 – DYING DECLARATION

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

• Dying declaration – antemortem statement or statement

in articulo mortis
• Requisites:
1. That death is imminent and the declarant is
conscious of that fact
▪ Considerations for the consciousness of
imminent death:
a. Words or statements of the declarant
b. His conduct at the time the declaration
was made
c. Serious nature of his wounds as to
engender a belief on his part that he
would not survive
2. That the declaration refers to the cause and the
surrounding circumstances of such death
3. That the declaration relates to facts which the victim
is competent to testify to
4. That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the
declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry
• Intervening time from the making of the declaration up
to the actual death is immaterial as long as the
declaration was made under the consciousness of

azereth
page 19
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
People vs. Sabio (1981)
It is the belief in the impending death at the time the
statement was made, and not the rapid succession of death,
that renders the dying declaration admissible.
• Interval of time may be taken into account where the
declaration was ambiguous as to whether the declarant
believed that his death was imminent when he made the
declaration
People vs. Antonio (1970)
Where the declarant stated that he would not die if
treated, such statement indicates an awareness of death and
the nature of his wound and his death an hour later qualifies
such statement into a dying declaration, or at least, as part of
res gestae.
People vs. Gueron (1983)
Where, shortly after he was wounded, the victim was
asked as to whether he believed he would die and to which he
replied, “I cannot ascertain,” and he died the following day,
his statement is admissible both as part of res gestae and as a
dying declaration.
People vs. Laquinon (1985)
Where the victim, when asked as to whether he thought
he would die, replied, “I don’t know,” his declaration was not
made under the consciousness of his imminent death and
does not qualify as an antemortem statement, although the
same may be admitted as part of the res gestae since it was
made immediately after the incident
• The credibility and weight of the admitted dying
declaration should be determined under the same rules
used in other testimonial evidence
• A dying declaration is admissible only to insofar as it
refers to facts regarding the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant’s death
• A dying declaration is admissible in any case as long as
the requisite concur
• A dying declaration may be oral or written or made by
signs which could be testified to by a witness thereto
People vs. Odencio (1979)
If the antemortem statement was made orally, the
witness who heard it may testify thereto, without necessarily
reproducing the exact words as long as he can give the
substance thereof, and if the deceased had an unsigned dying
declaration, the same may be used as a memorandum by the
witness who took it down
• May be attacked on the absence of any of the requisites
and may be impeached in the same manner as the
testimony of any other witness on the stand
» American jurisprudence: dying declarations are on
the same footing as testimony of a witness on a
stand and whatever would disqualify the witness
would also make such declaration incompetent
evidence
People vs. Molas (1993)
Facts: Bernardo Resonable went home after working in his
farm. There he found his son Abelardo (8) bleeding at the
doorway of their house. Bernardo carried Abelardo inside the
house. Abelardo informed his father that Josue Molas was the
person who not only inflicted his injuries but also stabbed his
sister Dulcesima and mother Soledad. Molas and Dulcesima
were sweethearts and engaged to be married. While Bernardo
looked for the bodies of his wife and daughter, Abelardo was
brought to the hospital by his brother Nicholas. Abelardo died
the next day.
Issue: WON the statement of Abelardo is admissible
Held: Yes
Ratio: Abelardo’s statement was given to his father while he
lay at death’s door, bleeding from stab wounds, as a result of
which he died the next day. It was indubitably a dying
declaration.
To be admissible, a dying declaration must:
1. Concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
declarant’s death
2. That the time it was made, the declarant was under a
consciousness of impending death
3. That he was a competent witness
azereth
page 20
4. That his declaration was offered in evidence in a criminal
case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the
declarant is the victim
All these circumstances were present when Abelardo made his
declaration
People vs. Molo (1979)
Facts: Not long after the couple Venacio Gapisa and Simeona
Rapa-Gapisa had retired for the night, Simeona heard and
indistinct sound of murmur and gnashing teeth. Venacio was
asleep by then. Although seized by fear, Simeona managed to
peep through the dilapidated buri wall and saw Dominador
Molo attired only in short pants, alone. She tried to awaken
Venacio but he did not respond. Molo had already climbed up
the stairs and barged into the house. When he found Venacio
asleep near the door, he immediately grabbed the latter’s left
wrist and started hacking the old man. Venacio woke up and
tried to fight back but he was unable to retaliate because Molo
started hacking him again. Simeona rushed out of the house
and called for help. Her son Alejandro and Roman Mangaring
ran towards the house and there they found Venacio bleeding
profusely. When Alejandro took his father in his arms, Venacio
told him that he was boloed by Boslo, the name by which Molo
was known in their locality. Roman also asked Venacio who
his assailant was and the latter answered Boslo. Venacio was
rushed to the hospital where he died a few minutes after
arrival.
Issue: WON the statements made by Venacio to Alejandro and
Roman are admissible
Held: Yes
Ratio: The statements of Venacio identifying Molo as his
assailant to Alejandro and Roman are dying declarations.
Considering the nature of the wounds, 8 in all, Venacio must
have the seriousness of his condition and that it can therefore
be inferred that he made the incrimination under the
consciousness of an impending death.
Declaration Against Interest
Section 38 – DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable
to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the
fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was
made was so contrary to declarant’s own interest, that
a reasonable man in his position would not have made
the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be
received in evidence against himself or his successors
in interest and against third persons.
• Made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity
with a party to the suit
» Admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as
a witness
• Requisites:
1. Declarant is dead or unable to testify
2. It relates to the facts against the declarant
3. At the time he made the declaration, he is aware
that the same was contrary to the aforesaid interest
4. Declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such
declaration to be true
Act or Declaration About Pedigree
Section 39 – ACT OR DECLARATION ABOUT PEDIGREE
The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable
to testify in respect to the pedigree of another person
related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in
evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and
the relationship between the two persons is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration. The word
“pedigree” includes relationship, family genealogy,
birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the places
where these facts occurred, and the names of the
relatives. It embraces also facts of family history
intimately connected with pedigree.
• Requisites:
1. The actor or declarant is dead and unable to testify
2. The act or declaration is made by the person related
to the subject by birth or marriage
3. The relationship between the declarant or the actor
and the subject is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
4. The act or declaration was made prior to the
controversy
• Do not require any specific degree of relationship
» But may affects the weight of such act or
declaration
Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding Pedigree
Section 40 – FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION
REGARDING PEDIGREE
The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous
to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any
one of its members, may be received in evidence if the
witness testifying thereon be also a member of the
family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in
family bibles or other family books or charts,
engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may
be received as evidence of pedigree
• Requisites:
1. Witness testifying thereto must be a member, by
consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the
subject
2. Such tradition or reputation must have existed in
that family ante litem motam
• Person’s statement of date of birth and age – declaration
of family tradition
» Prevails over mere opinion of the trial judge
» But cannot generally prevail over secondary
statement of the father
Common Reputation
Section 41 – COMMON REPUTATION
Common reputation existing previous to the
controversy, respecting facts of public or general
interest more than 30 years old, respecting marriage or
moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments
and inscriptions in public places may be received as
evidence of common reputation
• Common reputation – general reputation; definite
opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved
is known or exists
» General or substantially undivided reputation and
need not be unanimous
» Admissible to prove:
▪ Facts of public or general interest more than
30 years old
• Public interest – national interest
• General interest – affecting inhabitants of
a particular region or community
• Must be more than 30 years old
» Established only by persons who
have had knowledge of that fact for
such length of time, or by
monuments or documents existing
for that length of time
▪ Marriage
▪ Moral character
• Not required to be more than 30 years old
» Must be ante litem motam
» Established by:
1. Testimonial evidence of competent witness
2. Monuments and inscription in public places
3. Documents containing statements
reputation
• Reputation – opinion of him by others
• Character – inherent qualities of a person
» Under this section, character may be established
through common reputation
• As a rule, reputation of a person should be that existing
in the place of his residence
» But, it may also be that existing in the place where
he is best known
US vs. Choa Chiok
The character of a place as an opium joint may be
proved by its common reputation in the community
azereth
page 21
Res Gestae
Section 42 – PART OF THE RES GESTAE
Statements made by a person while a startling
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res
gestae. So also statements accompanying an equivocal
act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae
• Res gestae (“things done”) refers to:
1. Spontaneous statements in connection with a
startling occurrence relating to that fact and in
effect forming part thereof
2. Statements accompanying an equivocal act (verbal
act) on the theory that they are the verbal parts of
the act to be explained
• Requirements:
1. The principal act (res gestae) is a startling
occurrence
2. The statements forming a part thereof were made
before the declarant had the opportunity to
contrive
3. Statements refer to the occurrence in question and
its attending circumstances
» Only such statements as appear to have been
involuntarily wrung from the witness by the impact
of the occurrence are admissible
• Interval of time between the startling occurrence and the
statement depends upon the circumstances
» But statement must have been made while the
declarant was under the immediate influence of the
startling occurrence
▪ If declarant rendered unconscious after the
startling occurrence, his statement relative to
thereto upon regaining consciousness still
forms part of re gestae regardless of the time
that intervened between
People vs. Berame (1976)
If the statement was made under the influence of a
startling event and the declarant did not have time to concoct
or contrive a story, even if made 9 hours after the killing, the
statement is admissible as part of res gestae
• Statements or outcries as part of res gestae had been
admitted to establish the identity of assailant, prove the
complicity of another person to the crime, establish
admission of liability on part of the accused
• Requirements for verbal acts to be admissible:
1. Res gestae be characterized as equivocal
2. Such act must be material to the issue
3. Statements must accompany the equivocal act
4. Statements give a legal significance to the
equivocal act
» “Verbal act” – used to denote that such statements
are the verbal parts of the equivocal act of which
such statements are explanatory
Borromeo vs. CA (1976)
Notes taken regarding a transaction by a person who is
not a party thereto and who has not been requested to take
down such notes are not part of the res gestae
of
Res Gestae (re a homicidal Dying Declaration
act)
Statement may also be made Declaration can only be made
by the killer himself or by a by the victim
third person
Statement may precede, Declaration made only after
accompany, or be made after the homicidal attack was
the homicidal act was committed
committed
Has its justification in the Trustworthiness is based
spontaneity of the statement upon its being given under
the awareness of impending
death
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
• Statement may not be a dying declaration because it was
not made under the consciousness of an impending
death, but may be admissible as part of res gestae if
made immediately after the incident
• Where the elements of both are present, may be
admitted as both
Entries in the Course of Business
Section 43 – ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS
Entries made at, or near the time of the transactions to
which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to
testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein
stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such
person made the entries in his professional capacity or
in the performance of a duty and in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty.
• Requisites:
1. The person who made the entry must be dead or
unable to testify
2. The entries were made at or near the time of the
transaction to which they refer
3. The entrant was in a position to know the facts
stated in the entries
4. The entries were made in his professional capacity
or in the performance of a duty, whether legal,
contractual, moral or religious
5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular
course of business or duty
Cang Yui vs. Gardner (34 Phil 376)
If the entrant is available as a witness, the said entries
will not be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, but
they may nevertheless be availed of by said entrant as a
memorandum to refresh his memory while testifying on the
transactions reflected therein
Rule 132, Section 16 – WHEN WITNESS MAY REFER
TO MEMORANDUM
A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded
by himself or under his direction at the time when
the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at
any other time when the fact was fresh in his
memory and he knew that the same was correctly
written or recorded; but in such case the writing or
record must be produced and may be inspected by
the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross-
examine the witness upon it and may read it in
evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such
a writing or record, though he retain no
recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to
swear that the writing or record correctly stated
the transaction when made; but such evidence
must be received with caution.
Yek Tong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Inc. vs.
Gutierrez, et al (CA, 59 OG 8122)
In the presentation and admission as evidence of entries
made in the regular course of business, there is no overriding
necessity to bring into court all the clerks or employees who
individually made the entries in a long account. It is sufficient
that the person who supervises the work of the clerks or other
employees making the entries testify that the account was
prepared under his supervision and that the entries were
regularly entered in the ordinary course of business
Entries in Official Records
Section 44 – ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
Entries in official records made in the performance of
his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a
person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined
by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated
• Merely prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated
• Requisites:
1. Entries were made by a public officer in the
performance of his duties or by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law
azereth
page 22
2. 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
3. Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner
in the official records
• Motor vehicle accident report made at about the time of
the accident by a police officer in the performance of his
duties
» Admissible if based upon information given by the
drivers who figured in the accident
» Prima facie evidence of facts therein stated
• Sheriff’s return – exception to hearsay
» Sheriff need not testify in court
• Entrant must have been competent
Remigio vs. Ortiga (33 Phil 614)
While a priest who officiates at a baptism acts pursuant
to a legal duty in recording the facts of such baptism in a
register, such entries in the register are not admissible to
prove the date of birth of the child or its relation to particular
persons as the entrant priest is not competent to testify with
respect to the truth of these latter facts
• Church registries – no longer public writings pursuant to
GO No. 58 and Act No. 190
» But still admissible as evidence of the facts stated
therein
» But necessary to be authenticated as private
writings
» A copy of the certificate transmitted to the public
officer as required by law becomes a public
document
▪ Admissible without prior authentication
• Entries in official records may be proved and evidenced
in the manner provided by Rule 132 Sections 24 and 25
Commercial Lists
Section 45 - COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE
Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list,
register, periodical, or other published compilation is
admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant
matter so stated if that compilation is published for use
by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally
used and relied upon by them therein.
• Examples: Carlisle or Wigglesworth Tables and accepted
actuarial and annuity tables
Learned Treatises
Section 46 - LEARNED TREATISES
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if
the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in
the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in
the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his
profession or calling as expert in the subject.
• Requisites:
1. The court takes judicial notice thereof
2. The same is testified to by a witness expert in the
subject
• CA took judicial notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values8
• Legal treatises also included
Testimony or Deposition at a Former Proceeding
Section 47 - TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER
PROCEEDING
The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or
unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding,
judicial or administrative, involving the same parties
and subject matter, may be given in evidence against
the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-
examine him.
• Requisites:
8
Estrada vs. Noble (CA, 49 OG 139)
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
1. Witness is dead or unable to testify
2. 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
3. The former case involved the same subject as that
in the present case, although on different causes of
action
4. The issues testified to by the witness in the former
trial is the same issue involved in the present case
5. The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-
examine the witness in the former case
• Subsequent failure or refusal to appear at the second
trial, or hostility since testifying at the first trial ≠
inability to testify
» Inability should proceed from a grave cause almost
amounting to death
Aldecoa vs. Jugo (61 Phil 374)9
Testimony given by a witness in a civil case is not
admissible in a subsequent criminal case, even if said witness
had died in the interim, because the former testimony
referred to in sec 15 of GO No. 5810 as being admissible in the
trial of the criminal case refers to testimony given in the
preliminary investigation or prior trial of said criminal case and
not to testimony taken in a prior civil case, the actions being
essentially different
Guevara vs. Almario (56 Phil 476)
The testimony of the witness in a prior criminal action
for libel as to the reputation of the offended party would be
admissible in the civil case arising from the same criminal
offense if said witness was no longer available
• Admissibility of prior judgment – governed by different
rules
Almeida Chantangco vs. Abaroa (40 Phil 1056)
A judgment in a criminal proceeding or in an
administrative proceeding cannot be read in evidence in a civil
action against a person not a party thereto to establish any
fact therein determined. The matter is res inter alios and
cannot be invoked as res judicata
• Such judgment may only be admitted in evidence in a
civil case by way of inducement, or to show a collateral
fact relevant to the issue in the civil action11
» Judgment can only prove that a certain defendant
has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to the
penalty therein imposed12
Miranda vs. Malate Garage & Taxicab, Inc.
(99 Phil 670)
A judgment of conviction, in the absence of collusion
between the accused and the offended party, is binding and
conclusive upon the person subsidiarily liable not only with
regard to his subsidiary liability but also with regard to the
amount thereof
• Said judgment is admissible in evidence in the civil action
brought to enforce said subsidiary liability13
7. OPINION RULE
Section 48 - GENERAL RULE
The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as
indicated in the following sections.
Section 49 - OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown
to posses, may be received in evidence.
9
Also in People vs. Villaluz (1983)
10
Later 1964 ROC Rule 115 Sec 1(f)
11
Ed A. Keller & Co. (Ltd.) vs. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co.
(Ltd.) (38 Phil 514); City of Manila vs. Manila Electric Co. (52 Phil
586)
12
Arambulo vs. Manila Electric Co. (55 Phil 75)
13
Pajarito vs. Seneris (1978)
azereth
page 23
Section 50 - OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESSES
The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given,
may be received in evidence regarding
a. The identity of a person about whom he has
adequate knowledge;
b. A handwriting with which he has sufficient
familiarity; and
c. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the
emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
• General rule: Section 48
• Exceptions: Sections 49 and 50
• Opinion of a witness is admissible in the following
circumstances:
1. On a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience or training which he possesses, that is,
when he is an expert thereon
2. Regarding the identity or the handwriting of a
person, when he has knowledge of the person or
handwriting, whether he is an ordinary or expert
witness
3. On the mental sanity of a person, if the witness is
sufficiently acquainted with the former or if the
latter is an expert witness
4. On the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance
of a person which he has observed
5. On ordinary matters known to all men of common
perception as the value of ordinary household
articles14
• Expert witness – one who belongs to the profession or
calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates
and who possesses special knowledge on questions on
which he proposes to express an opinion
» No definite standard of determining degree of
knowledge or skill
» Factors:
1. Training and education
2. Particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts
of the case
3. Presentation of authorities or standards upon
which his opinion is based15
» Expert evidence is admissible only when:
1. The matter to be testified to is one that
requires expertise
2. The witness has been qualified as a witness
» Hypothetical questions may be asked of an expert
» Courts are not bound by the expert’s findings16
» Generally not regarded as conclusive, but purely
advisory in character17
Wells vs. Leek (151 Pa. 431, 439, 25 Atl. 101)
In weighing the testimony of an expert witness, courts
must necessarily consider all the circumstances of the case,
among them his qualifications, experience and degree of
learning, the basis and logic of his conclusion, and the other
evidence of record. The value of expert testimony depends
largely on the extent of the experience or studies of the
witness, because the greater his experience or knowledge, the
greater is the value of his opinion resting upon the same
US vs. Kosel (24 Phil 594)
With respect to a handwriting expert, the value of his
opinion depends not upon his mere statement whether the
handwriting is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he
may afford in pointing out the distinguishing marks,
characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and
false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape
notice or detection by an untrained observer
• Whether or not courts are bound by the testimony of an
expert depends greatly upon the nature of the subject of
inquiry
14
Galian vs. State Assurance Co. Ltd. (29 Phil 413)
15
People vs. Abriol (2001)
16
People vs. Florendo (68 Phil 619)
17
People vs. Deauna (2002)
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
» If the same is one that falls within the general
knowledge of judges, courts are not bound by the
conclusions of even a real expert along such line18
» Only where the subject of inquiry is of such a
technical nature that a layman can possibly have no
knowledge thereof that the courts must depend and
rely upon expert evidence19
• Conflicting expert evidence have neutralizing effect
» Generates doubt
18
Paras vs. Narciso (35 Phil 244); Dolar vs. Diansin (55 Phil 479)
19
Raymundo vs. Legaspi (47 OG 807), cited in NARIC vs. First
National Security & Assurance Co., Inc. (CA, 64 OG 10607)
azereth
page 24
Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan (1985)20
Where the supposed expert’s testimony would
constitute the sole ground for conviction and there is equally
expert testimony to the contrary, the constitutional
presumption of innocence must prevail
• Expert evidence on handwriting is at best, weak and
unsatisfactory
» Proof of handwriting by comparison is in most cases
unsafe, even when several documents are used as
bases for comparison
 Contrary ruling: see Lopez vs. CA (1978)
» Opinions of handwriting experts are not necessarily
binding upon the courts
• Authenticity of a questioned signature cannot be
determined solely upon its general characteristics,
similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature
» Dissimilarities are not decisive on the question of a
signature’s authenticity
• Common knowledge that that the writing of a person
changes as time passes
Cirujano vs. PNB (CA, 59 OG 8404)
Less weight should be given to inferences from
comparison, than to direct and credible testimony of witnesses
as to the matters within their personal observation
• Diphenaline or Paraffin Test – proved to be extremely
unreliable in use
People vs. Mendoza (1989)
The Paraffin test is not conclusive as to the presence of
gunpowder because fertilizers, cosmetics, cigarettes, urine,
and other nitrogenous compounds with nitrites and nitrates
will give a positive reaction
People vs. Castillon III (2001)
A finding that the paraffin test yielded negative results
is not conclusive evidence that the accused had not fired a
gun. It is possible for a person to have fired a gun and yet be
negative for the presence of nitrates, as when he wore gloves
or washed his hands afterwards
• Results of blood grouping tests on the filiation of a child,
competently conducted by qualified persons, are
admissible and conclusive on the non-paternity of a
person over a child
• Admissibility of DNA evidence has been upheld by the SC
» In assessing the probative value, necessary to
consider, inter alia, how the samples were collected,
how they were handled, the possibility of
contamination of the samples, the procedure
followed in analyzing the samples, the
determination of whether or not the proper
standards and procedures were followed in
conducting the tests and the qualification of the
analyst who conducted those tests
Bryan vs. Eastern & Australian S.S. Co., Ltd.
(28 Phil 310)
The testimony of a witness skilled in the unwritten law
of a foreign country is not necessarily binding on our courts
8. CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Section 51 - CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT GENERALLY
ADMISSIBLE; EXCEPTIONS:
a. In Criminal Cases:
1. The accused may prove his good moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged.
2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not
prove his bad moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged. The good or bad moral
character of the offended party may be proved
if it tends to establish in any reasonable
degree the probability or improbability of the
offense charged.
b. In Civil Cases:
20
Siasat vs. IAC (1985)
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil
case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue
of character involved in the case.
c. In the case provided for in Rule 132, Sec 14.

Summary of the rules on character evidence:

• With respect to the nature of the case
» Criminal cases
 Prosecution at the outset may not prove the
bad moral character of the accused which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged
• Intended to avoid unfair prejudice to the
accused
• If accused in his defense attempts to
prove his good moral character,
prosecution can introduce evidence of bad
moral character in rebuttal
 Good or bad moral character of the offended
party may be proved by either party as long as
such evidence is relevant
» Civil cases
 Moral character of either party cannot be
proved unless pertinent to the issue of
character involved
• With respect to the person
» Accused: character evidence must be pertinent to
the moral trait involved in the offense charged
» Offended party: sufficient that character evidence is
relevant
» Witness: bad moral character may always be proved
by either party (Rule 132 Sec 11)
 Not evidence of his good moral character
unless it has been impeached (Rule 132 Sec
14)

azereth
page 25
Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved
Evidence

Burden of Proof and What Need the facts are more immediately within the
knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi
Not Be Proved rests on him. It is not incumbent upon the
prosecution to adduce positive evidence to
support a negative averment the truth of which
Rule 131 – Burden of Proof and Presumptions is fairly indicated by established circumstances
and which, if untrue, could readily be
disproved by documents or other evidence
1. BURDEN OF PROOF
within the knowledge or control of the accused.
Section 1 – BURDEN OF PROOF
People vs. Macalaba (2003)
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
Thus where the charge is made that the accused carried
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
on a business without a license, the fact that he has a license
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by
is a matter which is peculiarly within his knowledge and he
law
must establish that fact or suffer conviction.
• Burden of proof – onus probandi; obligation imposed
2. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
upon a party who alleges the existence of facts necessary
for the prosecution of his action or defense to establish
A. FACTS WHICH ARE PRESUMED
the same by the requisite quantum of evidence
» Civil cases – preponderance of evidence
• Presumption – inference of an existence or non-existence
of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the
Rule 183, Section 1
proof of other facts
» Compared to judicial notice and judicial admission
▪ Presumption: proponent still has to introduce
» Criminal cases
evidence of the basis of the presumption,
▪ For issuance of warrant of arrest after PI –
evidence of the existence or non-existence of
evidence of probable cause
facts from which the court can draw the
• Reasonable ground to believe that the
inference of the fact in issue
accused committed the offense
▪ Judicial notice and judicial admission: as a
▪ To warrant the filing of an information – prima
rule, proponent does not have to introduce
facie evidence
evidence
▪ To sustain a conviction – evidence beyond
reasonable doubt
» Charge of misconduct against judges – clear and Presumptions of Law Presumptions of Fact
convincing evidence
▪ Removal – beyond reasonable doubt Praesumptiones juris Praesumptiones hominis
» Agrarian cases – substantial evidence
Certain inference must be Discretion is vested in the
▪ Only such relevant evidence as a reasonable
made whenever the facts tribunal as to drawing the
mind might accept, as sufficient to support a
appear which furnish the inference
conclusion
basis for the inference
▪ Also applies to cases filed before administrative
or quasi-judicial bodies Reduced to fixed rules and Derived wholly and directly
form a part of the system from the circumstances of the
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence of jurisprudence particular case by means of the
common experience of
Civil cases - on the party who Both civil and criminal cases mankind
would be defeated if no – lies with party who asserts
Types:
evidence were given on an affirmative allegation
1. Conclusive (juris et de
either side
jure)
Criminal cases – always on
2. Disputable (juris
the prosecution
tantum or prima facie)
Does not shift as it remains Shifts from party to party
throughout the trial with the depending upon the 1) Conclusive Presumptions
party upon whom it is exigencies of the case in the
imposed course of the trial Section 2 – CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
The following instances are conclusive presumptions:
Generally determined by the Generally determined by the a. Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act,
pleading filed by the party developments at the trial or or omission, intentionally and deliberately led
by provisions of law another to believe a particular thing true, and to
act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation
arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be
• Negative allegations – do not have to be proved
permitted to falsify it;
» Except where such are essential parts of the COA or
b. The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
defense in a civil case or essential ingredients of the
landlord at the time of the commencement of the
offense
relation of landlord and tenant between them.
▪ E.g. breach of contract: prove the fact that the
defendant did not comply with the obligation
• Based upon doctrine of estoppel in pais
Illegal possession of firearms: absence of a
license
2) Disputable Presumptions
▪ However, in civil cases, even if negative
allegation is an essential part of the COA or
Section 3 – DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION
defense, such does not have to be proven if it
The following presumptions are satisfactory if
is only for the purpose of denying the
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome
existence of a document which would properly
by other evidence:
be in the custody of the adverse party
a. That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
▪ The general rule is if the criminal charge is
b. That an unlawful act was done with unlawful
predicated on a negative allegation or that a
intent;
negative averment is an essential element of
c. That a person intends the ordinary consequences
the crime, the prosecution has the burden of
of his voluntary act;
proving the charge. Where the negative of an
d. That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
issue does not permit of direct proof, or where

azereth
page 26
Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved
Evidence
e. That evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced;
f. That the money paid by one to another was due to
the latter;
g. That the thing delivered by one to another
belonged to the latter;
h. That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has
been paid;
i. That prior rents or installments had been paid
when a receipt for the latter ones is produced;
j. That a person in possession of a thing taken in the
doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the
doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which
a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership
over, are owned by him;
k. That a person in possession of an order on himself
for the payment of money, or the delivery
anything, has paid the money or delivered the
thing accordingly;
l. That a person acting in a public office was regularly
appointed or elected to it;
m. That official duty has been regularly performed;
n. That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in
the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the
lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
o. That all the matters within an issue raised in a case
were laid before the court and passed upon by it;
and in like manner that all matters within an issue
raised a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid
before the arbitrators and passed upon by them;
p. That private transactions have been fair and
regular;
q. That the ordinary course of business have been
followed;
r. That there was sufficient consideration for a
contract;
s. That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed
for a sufficient consideration;
t. That an indorsement of a negotiable instrument
was made before the instrument was overdue and
at the place where it was dated;
u. That a writing is duly dated;
v. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received
in the regular course of the mail;
w. That after an absence of 7 years, it being unknown
whether or not the absentee still lives, he shall be
considered dead for all purposes except those of
succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the
purpose of opening his succession till after an
absence of 10 years. If he disappeared after the
age of 75, an absence of 5 years shall be sufficient
in order that his succession may be opened.
The following shall be presumed dead for all
purposes, including the division of the estate
among the heirs:
1) A person on board a vessel lost during a
sea voyage, or an aircraft which is missing,
who has not been heard of for 4 years since
the lost of the vessel or aircraft;
2) A member of the armed forces who has
taken part in armed hostilities and has been
missing for 4 years;
3) A person who has been in danger of death
under other circumstances and whose
existence has not been known for 4 years;
4) If a married person has been absent for 4
consecutive years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she
has a well-founded belief that the absent
spouse is already dead. In case of
disappearance, where there is danger of death
under the circumstances hereinabove
provided, an absence of only 2 years shall be
sufficient for the purpose of contracting a
subsequent marriage. However, in any case,
before marrying again, the spouse present
must institute a summary proceeding as
provided in the Family Code and in the rules
for declaration of presumptive death of the
absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
the reappearance of the absent spouse.
azereth
page 27
x. That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the
thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or
fact;
y. That things have happened according to the
ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits
of life;
z. That persons acting as co-partners have entered
into a contract of partnership;
aa. That a man and woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage;
bb. That property acquired by a man and a woman who
are capacitated to marry each other and who live
exclusively with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or under a void
marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts,
work, or industry;
cc. That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a
woman who are not capacitated to marry each
other and who have acquired property through
their actual joint contribution of money, property,
or industry, such contributions and their
corresponding shares including joint deposits of
money and evidences of credit are equal;
dd. That if the marriage is terminated and the mother
contracted another marriage within 300 days after
such termination of the former marriage, these
rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the
contrary:
1) A child born before 180 days after the
solemnization of the subsequent marriage is
considered to have been conceived during the
former marriage, provided it be born within
300 days after the termination of the former
marriage.
2) A child born after 180 days following the
celebration of the subsequent marriage is
considered to have been conceived during
such marriage, even though it be born within
300 days after the termination of the former
marriage.
ee. That a thing once proved to exist continues as long
as is usual with the things of that nature;
ff. That the law has been obeyed;
gg. That a printed or published book, purporting to be
printed or published by public authority, was so
printed or published;
hh. That a printed or published book, purporting to
contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of
the country where the book is published, contains
correct reports of such cases;
ii. That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to
convey the real property to a particular person has
actually conveyed it to him when such presumption
is necessary to perfect the title of such person or
his successor-in-interest;
jj. That except for purposes of succession, when 2
persons perish in the same calamity, such as
wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown
who died first, and there are no particular
circumstances from which it can be inferred, the
survivorship is determined from the probabilities
resulting from the strength and age of the sexes,
according to the following rules:
1) If both were under the age of 15, the older is
deemed to have survived;
2) If both were above the age of 60, the younger
is deemed to have survived;
3) If one is under 15 and the other is above 60,
the former is deemed to have survived;
4) If both be over 15 and under 60, and the sex is
different, the male is deemed to have
survived; if the sex is the same, the older;
5) If one be under 15 or over 60, and the other
between those ages, the latter is deemed to
have survived
kk. That if there is doubt, as between 2 or more
persons who are called to succeed each other, as to
which of them died first, whoever alleges the death
of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in
the absence of proof, they shall be considered to
have died at the same time.
Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved
Evidence
• Par (a)
» Legislature may provide for prima facie evidence of
guilt provided there be a rational connection
between the facts proved and the ultimate fact
presumed
▪ RPC, Article 217
• Requisites for par. (e)
1. The evidence is material
2. Party had the opportunity to produce the same
3. Said evidence is available only to said party
▪ Presumption does not apply if evidence is
equally available to both parties, or is merely
corroborative/cumulative or unnecessary

People vs. Realon (1980)

Presumption does not arise from the failure of the
prosecution to present the NBI agents and the results of the
fingerprint and paraffin tests in view of the overwhelming
evidence on the positive identification of the accused.
Furthermore, the defense could have availed of said evidence
which was equally available to it

People vs. Navaja (1993)

The adverse presumption of suppression of evidence
does not arise when:
1. The suppression is not willful,
2. The evidence withheld is merely corroborative or
cumulative,
3. The evidence is at the disposal of both parties,
4. The suppression is an exercise of a privilege

• Par. (i) is connected with the Civil Code principles

Civil Code, Article 1176

The receipt of the principal by the creditor, without
reservation with respect to the interest, shall give
rise to the presumption that said interest has been
paid.
The receipt of a later installment of a debt without
reservation as to prior installments, shall likewise
raise the presumption that such installments have
been paid.

• Par (j) – similar rationale:

People vs. Sendaydiego (1978)

If a person had in his possession a falsified document
and he made use of it, taken advantage of it and profited
thereby, the presumption is that he is the material author of
the falsification.

• Par (v) – it must be proved that the letter was properly

addressed with postage pre-paid and that it was actually
mailed
» If not returned to sender, it is presumed that it was
received by the addressee

Barrameda vs. Castillo (1977)

Under Rule 13, Sec 10, service by pleadings by mail is
complete upon the expiration of 10 days after mailing, unless
the court otherwise provides, while service by registered mail
is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, but if he
fails to claim his mail from the post office within 5 days from
the date of first notice, the service is complete at the
expiration of such time. There must, however, be conclusive
proof that a first notice was sent to the addressee as the
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed
does not apply to this situation

Ferraren vs. Santos (1982)

If, however, the postmaster certifies that first notice
was sent, the presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed arises and overrides the contrary claim of the
addressee.

• Par (w) – taken from Civil Code

» Sub par 1&2 – the absentee is presumed to have
died at the end of the period (5/7/10 years)
» Sub par 3 (qualified absence) – absentee is
presumed to have died at the time he was exposed
to the danger or peril
▪ At the start of the 4 year period
▪ Number (4) does not actually provide for a
presumption – corollary procedural rule

Victory Shipping Lines vs. WCC (106 Phil 1165)

Where the fate of the vessel is known, and not where
the vessel was merely lost or missing, the disputable

azereth
page 28
Burden of Proof and What Need Not Be Proved
Evidence
presumption of death does not arise and the fact of death,
must, instead, be established by preponderance of evidence

• Par (dd) – taken from Art 259 of the Civil Code, in line
with Art 168 of the Family Code
• Par (jj) – requisites:
1. Deaths occurred in a calamity
2. There are no particular circumstances from which it
can be inferred that one died ahead of the other

azereth
page 29
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Presentation of Evidence
Rule 132 – Presentation of Evidence
A. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Section 1 – EXAMINATION TO BE DONE IN OPEN COURT
The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or
hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or
affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to
speak, or the question calls for a different mode of
answer, the answers of a witness shall be given orally
Section 2 – PROCEEDINGS TO BE RECORDED
The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including
the questions to be propounded to a witness and his
answer thereto, the statements made by the judge or
any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses with reference
to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or
stenotype or by other means of recording found
suitable by the court.
A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by
the official stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and
certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie
a correct statement of such proceedings.
• To be admissible, testimony of a witness may be given in
open court
» May be supplanted by:
1. Civil cases – depositions (Rules 23 – 24)
2. Criminal cases – depositions or conditional
examinations (Rule 119 Sections 12-15 and
Rule 123 Sec 1)
» Mere presentation of affidavits of witnesses subject
to cross-examination is not allowed by the rules
» But, under BP 129, summary procedures may be
authorized by SC in special cases
▪ May provide that affidavits and counter-
affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral
testimony
• Testimony of witness should be elicited by questions of
counsel
» But Court itself may propound questions or may
suggest questions to counsel
People vs. Manalo (1987)
The court should be given reasonable leeway to
ascertain the truth, and the extent to which such examination
may be conducted rests in its discretion and will not be
controlled in the absence of abuse of discretion to the
prejudice of either party
Section 3 - RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS
A witness must answer questions, although his answer
may tend to establish a claim against him. However, it
is the right of a witness:
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of
justice require;
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the issue;
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject
him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
provided by law; or
5. Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade
his reputation, unless it to be 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. (3a,
19a)
• Witness cannot refuse to answer questions material to
the inquiry even if it may tend to establish a claim
against him
• But may refuse if:
1. Under the right against self-degradation unless:
a. Such question is directed to the very fact in
issue
azereth
page 30
b. Refers to his previous final conviction or
offense
2. Under the right against self-incrimination
▪ Criminal cases – Rule 115 Section 1(e):
accused may refuse to take the stand
altogether
• Accused: may be with reference to the
offense involved in the same case wherein
he is charged or to an offense for which
he may be charged and tried in another
case
• Witness: offense involved is one for which
he may be tried in another case
• Right should be seasonably invoked and
may be waived
▪ Other cases/proceedings – a party may be
compelled to take the stand but he may object
to incriminating questions
Beltran vs. Samson (53 Phil 570)
Where in a prosecution for falsification, the
accused took the stand and testified denying his
authorship of the alleged falsified signature, on
cross-examination he can be compelled to give a
sample of his handwriting and it was not a denial of
his right against self-incrimination
Bermudez vs. Castillo (64 Phil 483)
Where, in a disbarment case, the complainant on
cross-examination denied authorship of certain
handwritten letters, she could not be compelled to
give samples of her handwriting as it would amount
to a denial of her right against self-incrimination in
a possible charge for perjury
▪ Conflict can be reconciled:
• Beltran: it was the accused himself who
opened the issue on his direct
examination
» He could have refused to testify
altogether
» Therefore, he waived his right
• Bermudez: complainant could not refuse
to testify without an unfavorable inference
being drawn against her
» Also, issue was raised during cross-
examination, hence she did not
waive the right
▪ “Unless otherwise provided by law” – refers to
immunity statutes wherein the witness is
granted immunity from criminal prosecution
Section 4 - ORDER IN THE EXAMINATION OF AN
INDIVIDUAL WITNESS
The order in which the individual witness may be
examined is as follows;
a. Direct examination by the proponent;
b. Cross-examination by the opponent;
c. Re-direct examination by the proponent;
d. Re-cross-examination by the opponent.
Section 5 - DIRECT EXAMINATION
Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a
witness by the party presenting him on the facts
relevant to the issue.
Section 6 - CROSS-EXAMINATION; ITS PURPOSE AND
EXTENT
Upon the termination of the direct examination, the
witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as
to many matters stated in the direct examination, or
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and
freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and
freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to
elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.
Section 7 - RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION; ITS PURPOSE
AND EXTENT
After the cross-examination of the witness has been
concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling
him, to explain or supplement his answers given during
the cross-examination. On re-direct-examination,
questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
examination, may be allowed by the court in its Section 8 - RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION
discretion. Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the
adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on
matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on
such other matters as may be allowed by the court in
its discretion.

• A witness may be cross examined by the adverse party

not only as to matters stated in the direct examination
but also as to matters connected therewith, and this
should be allowed to do with sufficient fullness and
freedom to test the witness’ accuracy, truthfulness and
freedom from interest or bias, and also to elicit from him
any important fact bearing upon the issue
» American rule – cross-examination must be
confined to the matters inquired about in the direct
examination
» English rule – witness may be cross-examined not
only upon matters relevant to the issue
» This jurisdiction – more on English rule
• Unwilling/hostile/adverse party witness – cross
examination shall only be on the subject of his
examination-in-chief
» Same as accused testifying on his own behalf
• Question which assumes facts not on the record:
» If on cross examination – objectionable for bring
misleading
» If on direct examination – objectionable for lack of
basis

Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. vs. CIR (1978)

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

People vs. Seneris (1980)

Where in a criminal case the prosecution witness was
extensively cross examined on the essential elements of the
crime and what remained for further cross-examination was
the matter of the prize or reward which was treated therein as
merely an aggravating circumstance, his failure to appear for
further cross-examination thereon will not warrant the striking
out of his direct examination, especially since further cross-
examination could not be conducted due to the subsequent
death of the said witness, a circumstance not attributable to
the prosecution

Section 9 - RECALLING WITNESS

After the examination of a witness by both sides has
been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without
leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold
leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may
require.

• Recall based on discretion of the court

» But recall is a matter of right if the examination of
the witness has not been concluded or the recall has
been expressly reserved by a party with the
approval of the court

Section 10 - LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS

A question which suggests to the witness the answer
which the examining party desires is a leading
question. It is not allowed, except:
a. On cross examination;
b. On preliminary matters;
c. When there is a difficulty is getting direct and
intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble
mind, or a deaf-mute;
d. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
e. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer,
director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation or of a partnership or association
which is an adverse party.
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a
fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to
that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed.

Section 11 - IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTY'S

WITNESS

azereth
page 31
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
A witness may be impeached by the party against
whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by
evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly,
or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at
other times statements inconsistent with his present,
testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful
acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of
the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has
been convicted of an offense.
Section 12 - PARTY MAY NOT IMPEACH HIS OWN
WITNESS
Except with respect to witnesses referred to in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party
producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his
credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile
only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing
of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify,
or his having misled the party into calling him to the
witness stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the
witness who is an adverse party, may be impeached by
the party presenting him in all respects as if he had
been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of
his bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-
examined by the adverse party, but such cross-
examination must only be on the subject matter of his
examination-in-chief.
Section 13 - HOW WITNESS IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE
OF INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS
Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he
has made at other times statements inconsistent with
his present testimony, the statements must be related
to him, with the circumstances of the times and places
and the persons present, and he must be asked whether
he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain
them. If the statements be in writing they must be
shown to the witness before any question is put to him
concerning them.
• Leading question – one which suggests to the witness the
answer desired
» May cause the witness, by reacting to an inference
in his mind, to testify in accordance with the
suggestion by the question
▪ Answer may be “rather an echo of the question
than a genuine recollection
» Testimony on direct examination elicited through
leading questions has little probative value
People vs. Dela Cruz (2002)
Leading questions may be permitted in the examination
of a witness who is immature; aged and infirm; an bad
physical condition; uneducated; ignorant of, or unaccustomed
to, court proceedings; inexperienced; unsophisticated; feeble-
minded; confused and agitated; terrified, timid or
embarrassed while on stand; lacking in comprehension of
questions or slow to understand; deaf and dumb; or unable to
speak or understand the English language or only imperfectly
familiar therewith
• Misleading question – one which assumes facts not in
evidence or without sufficient basis or which assumes
testimony or proof which has not been given
Fernandez vs. Tantoco (49 Phil 380)
A party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness
in the case is, as a rule, bound by the testimony of the said
witness. The exceptions to the rule are:
1. In case of a hostile witness
2. Where the witness is the adverse party or the
representative of a judicial person which is the adverse
party
3. When the witness is not voluntarily offered but is
required by law to be presented by the proponent, as in
the case of a subscribing witness to a will
• Party can impeach adverse party’s witness by:
1. Contradictory evidence – other testimony of the
same witness, or other evidence presented by him
azereth
page 32
in the same case, but not the testimony of another
witness
2. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements –
statements, oral or documentary, made by the
witness sought to be impeached on occasions other
than the trial in which he is testifying
▪ “Laying the predicate”
a. By confronting him with such statements,
with the circumstances under which they
were made
b. By asking him whether he made such
statement
c. By giving him a chance to explain the
inconsistency
» Impeachment is incomplete if
witness is not given the chance to
explain the discrepancy
» But defect is waived if no objection
on that ground is raised when the
document involved is offered for
admission
▪ No need to lay the predicate if the prior
inconsistent statement appears in a deposition
of the adverse party and not a mere witness
• Statements are in the nature of an
admission
Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc. vs. Hashim
(50 Phil 132)
Where previous statements of a witness are
offered as evidence of an admission, and not merely
to impeach him, the rule on laying the predicate
does not apply
3. Evidence of bad character
4. Evidence of bias, interest, prejudice or
incompetence
• Party can impeach his own witness only by:
1. Evidence contradictory to his testimony
2. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements
» In case of hostile/adverse party/involuntary
witnesses – can also be impeached by other modes
of impeachment
Section 14 - EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF
WITNESS
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not
admissible until such character has been impeached.
Section 15 - EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF
WITNESSES
On any trial or hearing, the judge may exclude from the
court any witness not at the time under examination, so
that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses.
The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate
and to be prevented from conversing with one another
until all shall have been examined.
• Power of exclusions apply only to witnesses and not to
parties in the civil case
• Parties have a right to be present at the trial
» Either by themselves or by their counsels
» Since they have such right, they cannot be divested
thereof by an exclusion order
Paez vs. Berenguer (8 Phil 457)
A party to an action has a right to be present in court
while his case is being tried, and the rule authorizing the
exclusion of witnesses during trial cannot be understood to
extend to him
• If witness violates the order of exclusion, court may bar
him from testifying or give little weight to his testimony
» Aside from his liability for contempt
People vs. Lua Chu (56 Phil 44)
It is within the power of the trial judge to refuse to
order the exclusion of the principal witness of the government
during the hearing of a criminal case and it may not, on that
count alone, be considered as an abuse of his discretion
Section 16 - WHEN WITNESS MAY REFER TO
MEMORANDUM
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by • Classification in RPC is different
himself or under his direction at the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other • “Public documents”
time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew
that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in Antillon vs. Barcelon (37 Phil 148)
such case the writing or record must be produced and Public documents generally include notarial documents
may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he and are admissible in evidence without the necessity of
chooses, cross examine the witness upon it, and may preliminary proof as to authenticity and due execution
read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from
such writing or record, though he retain no recollection
of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the
writing or record correctly stated the transaction when
made; but such evidence must be received with caution.

• American jurisprudence:
» First sentence – “revival of present memory”
▪ Applies if witness remembers the facts
regarding his entries and is entitled to greater
weight
» Second sentence – revival of past recollection
▪ Applies where the witness does not recall the
facts involved and is entitled to lesser weight
• Applies only when it is shown beforehand that there is a
need to refresh the memory of the witness
• Memorandum used to refresh the memory of the witness
does not constitute evidence and may not be admitted as
such
» Reason: the witness has just the memorandum to
testify on the basis of refreshed memory
» Memorandum not admissible as corroborative
evidence

Borromeo vs. CA (1976)

Where the witness has testified independently of or
after his memory has been refreshed by a memorandum of
the events in dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as
corroborative evidence, since the witness may not be
corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by
him. He cannot be more credible just because he supports his
open-court declaration with written statements of the same
facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in
dispute, unless the proper predicate of his failing memory is
priorly laid down

Section 17 - WHEN PART OF TRANSACTION, WRITING

OR RECORD GIVEN IN EVIDENCE, THE REMAINDER, THE
REMAINDER ADMISSIBLE
When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing
or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of
the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and
when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing
or record is given in evidence, any other act,
declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary
to its understanding may also be given in evidence.

• Similar rule in depositions

Rule 32, Section 4 – OATH OF COMMISSIONER

Before entering upon his duties the commissioner
shall be sworn to a faithful and honest
performance thereof

Section 18 - RIGHT TO RESPECT WRITING SHOWN TO

WITNESS
Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, it may be
inspected by the adverse party.

B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS

Section 19 - CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS

For the purpose of their presentation evidence,
documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
a. The written official acts, or records of the official
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
b. Documents acknowledge before a notary public
except last wills and testaments; and
c. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
documents required by law to the entered therein.
All other writings are private.

azereth
page 33
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
» Except if law requires proof
▪ E.g. notarial wills – law still requires witnesses
for its probate
» Kinds:
1. Official documents
• Requisites for admissibility of copy of
foreign official document:
a. Must be attested by the officer
having legal custody of the records
or his deputy
b. Must be accompanied by a Philippine
diplomatic or consular representative
to the foreign country certifying that
such attesting officer has the
custody of the document
▪ Requirement is not merely a
technicality but is intended to
justify the giving of full faith
and credit to the genuineness
of a document in a foreign
country
2. Those acknowledged before persons authorized
to administer oaths – further governed by
Section 30
3. Private documents required by law to entered
in public records – subject to provisions of
Section 27
• While public records of private writings
are also public documents, the public
writing is not the writing itself but the
“public record” thereof
Republic vs. Worldwide Insurance &
Surety Co. (CA, 62 OG 8857)
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 the private writing it
admissible without authentication
• “Private documents” – commercial and private
documents
Section 20 - PROOF OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT
Before any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
must be proved either:
a. By anyone who saw the document executed or
written; or
b. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as
that which it is claimed to be.
Section 21 - WHEN EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY OF
PRIVATE DOCUMENT NOT NECESSARY
Where a private document is more than thirty years old,
is produced from the custody in which it would
naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by
any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other
evidence of its authenticity need be given.
Section 22 - HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING
PROVED
The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
person because he has seen the person write, or has
seen writing purporting to be his upon which the
witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given
by a comparison, made by the witness or the court,
with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the
party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved
to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
• Rules of authenticity
• In addition, American jurisprudence also gives:
» Doctrine of self-authentication - where the facts in
the writing could only have been known by the
writer
azereth
page 34
» Rule of authentication by adverse party – where the
reply of the adverse party refers to and affirms the
sending to him and his receipt thereof of the letter
in question, a copy of which the proponent is
offering as evidence
• Authentication of document not required if:
1. The writing is an ancient document (Sec 21)
2. The writing is a public document or record (Sec 19)
3. It is a notarial document acknowledged, proved or
certified in accordance with Sec 30
4. The authenticity and due execution of the
document has been expressly or impliedly admitted
by a failure to deny the same under oath
▪ Actionable documents (Rule 8, Section 8)
• Authenticity and due execution of a private document is
proved by, inter alia, evidence of genuineness of the
handwriting of the maker
» Handwriting is proved by:
1. Witness who actually saw the person writing
the instrument (Sec 20a)
2. Witness familiar with such handwriting (Sec
22) and who can give his opinion thereon, such
opinion being exception to opinion rule (Rule
130, Sec 50b)
3. Comparison by the court of the questioned
handwriting and admitted genuine specimens
thereof (Sec 22)
4. Expert evidence (Rule 130 Sec 49)
Lopez vs. CA (1978)
Rule 132 Section 22 merely enumerates the methods of
proving handwriting but does not give preference or priority to
a particular method
Section 24 - PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD
The record of public documents referred to in paragraph
(a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose,
may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or
by a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in
foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer
in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
Section 25 - WHAT ATTESTATION OF COPY MUST STATE
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested
for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state,
in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the
original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be.
The attestation must be under the official seal of the
attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of
a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
Section 26 - IRREMOVABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORD
Any public record, an official copy of which is
admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the
office in which it is kept, except upon order of a court
where the inspection of the record is essential to the
just determination of a pending case.
• Public record – cannot be removed from the office in
which it is kept without a court order such as subpoena
duces tecum
» Even court cannot order its removal except when
essential to the just determination of the pending
case
» Refers only to a public record an official copy of
which could be made available to the interested
party and is admissible in evidence
Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. vs. CA (2000)
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 the foreign
law
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Section 27 - PUBLIC RECORD OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT
An authorized public record of a private document may » Not sufficient to prove paternity21 or voluntary
be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, recognition of a child22
attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
appropriate certificate that such officer has the
custody.

Section 28 - PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD

A written statement signed by an officer having the
custody of an official record or by his deputy that after
diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is
found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied
by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as
evidence that the records of his office contain no such
record or entry.

Section 29 – HOW JUDICIAL RECORD IMPEACHED

Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
a. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer,
b. Collusion between the parties, or
c. Fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to
the proceedings.

• Rule 39 Sec 1

Section 30 - PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS

Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
certified as provided by law, may be presented in
evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
execution of the instrument or document involved.

• Public documents may be proved by:

1. Original copy
2. Official publication thereof
3. Certified true copy thereof
▪ Requirements in Secs 24 and 25
• Unless specifically exempted (FC, Art 12)

Mahilum vs. CA (1966)

It is presumed that the requisite stamps
have been affixed to the original copy of a
document where only the carbon copies
thereof are available

Lopez vs. CA (1987)

Where the special power of attorney is
executed and acknowledged before a notary
public or other competent officer in a foreign
country, it cannot be admitted in evidence in
Philippine courts unless it is certified as such in
accordance with Rule 132 Sec 24 by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul-
general, consul, vice-consul, consular agent or
by any officer in the foreign service in the
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept of said public
document and authenticated by the seal of his
office

• Even public documents do not have uniform probative

value
» Probative value depends on the kind of document
that is presented in evidence
• Baptismal certificates
» Held as analogous to the records of birth in CC Art
265, before the establishment of civil registry in
1917
▪ Considered presumptive evidence of facts
stated therein
» Issued by priests during Spanish regime –
considered as public documents
» Issued after the Spanish regime – private document
and cannot even be prima facie evidence of the fact
that gave rise to its execution (the fact of the
baptism and the date thereon)
▪ Hearsay and inadmissible
• Unless the priest who performed the
baptismal rights and made the certificate
is produced

21
Arde vs. Anocoche (1978)
222
Berciles vs. GSIS (1984)

azereth
page 35
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Macadangdang vs. CA (1980) offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to
A baptismal certificate is proof only of the baptism be done in writing.
administered by the priest who baptized the child but not
the veracity of the declarations and statements in the
certificates concerning the relationship of the person
baptized

» Above doctrines modified by the SC in determining

the minority of the victim in statutory rape or where
that fact is an element of qualified rape

People vs. Llandelar (2001)23

While recognizing the primacy of a birth certificate as
proof of the victim’s age, the SC held that, in the
absence of such evidence, the victim’s minority may be
proved by other documentary evidence such as her
baptismal certificate or other authentic records

• Death certificate

Sison vs. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada

(CA, 47 OG 1954)
A death certificate is not proof of the cause of death, its
probative value being confined only to the fact of death, and
the statement therein

Garcia Fule vs. Malvar (1976)

A death certificate is admissible to prove the residence
of the deceased at the time of his death

Section 31 - ALTERATION IN DOCUMENT, HOW TO

EXPLAIN
The party producing a document as genuine which has
been altered and appears to have been altered after its
execution, in a part material to the question in dispute,
must account for the alteration. He may show that the
alteration was made by another, without his
concurrence, or was made with the consent of the
parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or
innocent made, or that the alteration did not change the
meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails to do
that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence.

Section 32 – SEAL
There shall be no difference between sealed and
unsealed private documents insofar as their
admissibility as evidence is concerned.

Section 33 - DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN

UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE
Documents written in an unofficial language shall not
be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a
translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption
of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed
to have such translation prepared before trial.

• Section 3, Article XIV, 1935 Constitution – English and

Spanish A official languages
• Section 3(3), Article XV, 1973 Constitution – English and
Pilipino
» PD 155 – Spanish language shall continue to be
recognized as an official language while important
documents in government files are in the Spanish
language and not translated into Pilipino or English
• Section 7, Article XIV, 1987 Constitution - the official
languages are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by
law, English, with the regional languages as auxiliary
official languages in the region

C. OFFER AND OBJECTION

Section 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.

Section 35 - WHEN TO MAKE OFFER

As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must
be made at the time the witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after
the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such

23
Also in People vs. Jalosjos (2001) and People vs. Fruna (2002)

azereth
page 36
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
Section 36 – OBJECTION
Objection to evidence offered orally must be made
immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the
oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as
the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to
within three (3) days after notice of the offer unless a
different period is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be
specified.
Section 37 - WHEN REPETITION OF OBJECTION
UNNECESSARY
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of
the examination of a witness that the question being
propounded are of the same class as those to which
objection has been made, whether such objection was
sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to
repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse
party to record his continuing objection to such class of
questions.
Section 38 – RULING
The ruling of the court must be given immediately after
the objection is made, unless the court desires to take a
reasonable time to inform itself on the question
presented; but the ruling shall always be made during
the trial and at such time as will give the party against
whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation
presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection
need not be stated. However, if the objection is based
on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the
objection on one or some of them must specify the
ground or grounds relied upon.
Section 39 - STRIKING OUT ANSWER
Should a witness answer the question before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection to the same, and such objection is found to be
meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and
order the answer given to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking
out of answers which are incompetent, irrelevant, or
otherwise improper.
Section 40 - TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE
If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded
by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to
or made part of the record. 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.
• Parties who offer objections to questions on whatever
ground are entitled to a ruling at the time the objection
is made
» Unless they present a question with regard to which
the court desires to inform itself before making a
ruling
Lopez vs. Valdez (32 Phil 644)
If no ruling is made during the course of the trial,
counsel would have no means of knowing whether or not he
would be compelled to meet any evidence at all, hence it
would prejudice the substantial rights of his client
People vs. Singh (45 Phil 645)
The failure of the court to make such ruling should be
brought to its attention, failing which the case cannot be
reopened for a new trial on that ground
People vs. Tavera (47 Phil 645)
The reservation of a ruling made by the court on an
objection to the admissibility of evidence, without
subsequently excluding the same, amounts to a denial of said
objection
People vs. Abalos (CA, 58 OG 5446)
The courts should consider the evidence only for the
purpose for which it was offered
azereth
page 37
Oliveros vs. Oliveros (106 Phil 369)24
The trial courts should permit all exhibits presented by
the parties, although not admitted, to be attached to the
records so that, in case of appeal, the appellate court may be
able to examine the same and determine the propriety of their
rejection
Bañez vs. CA (1974)
Where documentary evidence was rejected by the trial
court and the offeror did not move that the same be attached
to the record, the same cannot be considered by the appellate
court
De Castro vs. CA (75 Phil 824)
Documents forming no part of the of proofs before the
appellate court cannot be considered in disposing of the case.
• Otherwise, it would infringe on the constitutional right of
the adverse party to due process of law25
• The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections
should be avoided
Prats & Co. vs. Phoenix Insurance Co. (52 Phil 807)
In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of
first instance, in the early stages of the development of the
proof, to know with any certainty whether testimony is
relevant or not; and where there is no indication of bad faith
on the part of the attorney offering the evidence, the court
may, as a rule, safely accept the testimony upon the
statement of the attorney that the proof offered will be
connected later
People vs. Diano (CA, 66 OG 6405)
Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be
considered for any other purpose
Sheraton-Palace hotel vs. Quijano (CA, 64 OG 9118)
A document or writing which is admitted not as
independent evidence but merely as part of the testimony of a
witness does not constitute proof of the facts related therein
• Identification of documentary evidence ≠ its formal offer
» Identification – made in the course of the trial
▪ Evidence identified and marked as exhibits
may be withdrawn before formal offer
» Formal offer – when proponent rests his case
▪ Where objection may be made
Vda de Flores vs. WCC (1977)26
Documents which may have been marked as exhibits
during the hearing but which were not formally offered in
evidence cannot be considered as evidence nor can they be
given evidentiary value
People vs. Mate (1981)
(Criminal case for kidnapping with murder) Even if there
was no formal offer of the exhibits but the same have been
duly identified by testimony duly recorded and the exhibits
have been incorporated in the records of the case, said
exhibits are admissible against the accused
People vs. Jose (1976)27
Considering the gravity of the offenses and in the
interest of justice, the SC allowed the presentation and
admitted the birth certificates of the accused to prove the
mitigating circumstance of minority although said birth
certificates were not presented or offered in the trial courts
• Section 37 – party may just enter a general and
continuing objection to the same class of evidence the
ruling of the court shall be applicable to all such evidence
of the same class
Ed. A. Keller & Co. (Ltd.) vs. Ellerman & Bucknall
Steamship Co., (Ltd.) (38 Phil 514)
24
Also Lamagan vs. Dela Cruz (1971)
25
Tinsay vs. Yusay (47 Phil 639)
26
Also Republic vs. CA and People vs. CA (1982), cf. People vs.
Pecardal and Soliman vs. Sandiganbayan (1986)
27
Also Co vs. Ca (1980)
Presentation of Evidence
Evidence
The court itself may motu proprio treat the objection as People vs. Bande
a continuing one An erroneous rejection or admission of evidence by the
trial court is not a ground for a new trial or reversal of the
decision if there are other independent evidence to sustain the
decision, or if the rejected evidence, if it had been admitted,
would not have changed the decision

• Otherwise, a new trial is warranted by reason of the

erroneous ruling which goes into the merits of the case
and would have affected the decision28

Tinsay vs. Yusay (47 Phil 639)

If the trial court erroneously ruled out the evidence and
discovered such error before the judgment had become final
or before an appeal therefrom had been perfected, it may re-
open the case

• Rulings of trial court on procedural questions and on

admissibility of evidence during the course of the trial are
interlocutory in nature and may not be the subject of
separate appeals or review on certiorari

28
US vs. Villanueva (18 Phil 639)

azereth
page 38
Index
Evidence

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

The failure of a party to present merely corroborative or
Evidence cumulative evidence does not give rise to any adverse or
unfavorable presumption

Rule 133 – Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

Section 1 - PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, HOW

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

Section 2 - PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

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

• Sections 1&2 give the rule on the requisite quantum of

evidence in civil and criminal cases
» Last 2 sentences of Sec1: factors which the court
may take into consideration in determining the
weight to be given in testimonial evidence
• Evidence must be from a credible source and must be
credible in itself
» It shall be natural, reasonable, and probable as to
make it easy to believe
» To be believed, it should be in accord with common
knowledge and experience of mankind
• General rule: findings of judge who tried the case and
heard the witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal,
unless there are substantial facts and circumstances
which have been overlooked and which, if properly
considered, might affect the result of the case
» Issue: credibility of the witness - trial court is in the
better position to decide the question, having heard
and observed the demeanor of the witness
▪ Unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance and value which, if considered,
might affect the outcome of the case
▪ Does not apply if one judge heard the
witnesses and another judge penned the
decision

People vs. Magallanes (1968)

The matter of assigning values to declarations at the
witness stand is best and most competently performed by a
trial judge, who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such
testimony in light of the defendant’s behavior, demeanor,
conduct and attitude at the trial, and the conclusions of the
trial courts command great weight and respect

People vs. Enriquez (CA, 44 OG 3853)

The trial court should not discredit a witness by the
supposed expression of lack of sincerity in his face. Facial
expressions are not necessarily indicative of one’s feelings.
The trial court should have made it appear in the record and
allowed the witness the opportunity to explain why he was
showing such an expression on his face

Caluna vs. Vicente (1951)

As a general rule, the number of witnesses should not in
and by itself determine the weight of evidence, but in case of
conflicting testimonies of witnesses, the numerical factor may
be given certain weight

azereth
page 39
Index
Evidence
People vs. Rivera (CA, 58 OG 68)
By credibility of a witness is meant his integrity,
disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony he
has given as distinguished from the credibility of his testimony
Arroyo vs. El Beaterio del Santissimo Rosario de Molo
(1968)
To hold that a particular person is competent to testify
upon a given matter does not mean that his testimony
thereon must be believed by the court or must be deemed by
it to be of sufficient probative value to establish the point
which it was intended to prove. Competency of a witness is
one thing, and it is another to be credible witness. Courts
allow a person to testify as a witness upon a given matter
because he is competent but may thereafter decide whether
to believe or not to believe his testimony
US vs. Macuti (26 Phil 170)
It is a well-settled doctrine that the demeanor, the
emphasis, gestures and inflection of the voice of a witness,
while testifying, are potent aids in the proper evaluation of his
credibility
Mondragon vs. CA (1974)
When a witness makes two sworn statements and these
two statements incur in the gravest contradictions, the court
cannot accept either statement as proof. The witness by his
own act of giving false testimony impeaches his own
testimony and the court should exclude it from all
consideration
People vs. Reyes (CA, 50 OG 665)
It has been said that “perhaps the most subtle and
prolific of all fallacies of testimony arises out of unconscious
partisanship. Upon the happening of an accident, the
occasional passengers on board of a streetcar are very apt to
side with the employees in charge of the car (citing Wellman,
The Art of Cross-Examination)
People vs. Juarez (CA, 57 OG 2518)
The fact that a person has reached the “twilight of his
life” is not always a guaranty that he would tell the truth. It is
also quite common that advanced age makes a person
mentally dull and completely hazy about things which have
happened to him and, at times, it weakens the resistance to
outside influence
US vs. Laban (21 Phil 297)
The record of a PI constitutes no part of the final
proceedings in a cause, unless it is presented in evidence, and
the facts adduced therein are evidence only for the purpose of
testing the credibility of the witnesses
• Bias – that which excites the disposition to see and
report matters as they are wished for rather than as they
are
People vs. Watin (CA, 67 OG 5899)
When the witnesses on both sides are equally interested
or otherwise biased, especially if there is no numerical
preponderance on either side, bias ceases to be a
consideration in determining where the weight of evidence
rests. Credit should be given to the one whose demeanor and
manner of testifying convinces the court of his veracity
• Testimony of interested witness – not necessarily biased
or self-serving
» But may affect their credibility
People vs. Aquino (1974)
While the testimony of a co-conspirator or an
accomplice is admissible, such testimony comes from a
polluted source and must be scrutinized with great caution as
it is subject to grave suspicion
• Testimony of a single witness may support a conviction –
if trustworthy and reliable
» And clear and convincing
• Testimony of offended party – not essential to convict
accused if there are already other evidence to prove the
guilt of the accused
» Prosecution not obliged to present each and every
person who witnesses the occurrence but only a
azereth
page 40
sufficient number to prove the commission of the
crime
• Inconsistencies on mere details – do not impair the
credibility of the witness
» Actually indicate veracity rather than prevarication
» Perfect dovetailing of witnesses testimonies can
generate suspicion – prefabricated story
• Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – deals only with eight
of evidence and is not a positive rule of law and the rule
is not an inflexible one of universal application
» Modern trend – testimony of a witness may be
believed in part and disbelieved in part
▪ Depending upon the corroborative evidence
and the probabilities and improbabilities of the
case
▪ Does not apply where:
1. The challenged testimony is sufficiently
corroborated on many grounds
2. The falsity consists of mistakes on points
that are not material
3. Such mistakes do not arise from the
apparent desire to pervert the truth but
from innocent lapses and the desire of the
witness to exculpate himself but not
completely
People vs. Abonales (106 Phil 190)
The non-production of a corroborative witness without
any explanation given why he was not so produced, weakens
the testimony of the witness who named the corroborating
witness in his testimony
• Rape cases: corroborative statements not required
» But testimony should be exercised with greatest
care
Garcia vs. Garcia (63 Phil 419)
The testimony of persons accidentally present at the
time of the execution of the will, but who have nothing to do
with the transaction, is not as weighty as that of the
subscribing witness
• Affirmative testimony – stronger than negative testimony
» Greater weight must be given to the positive
testimony of the witness than to the denial of the
defendant
• Conflict in the testimony of 2 witnesses – may be due to
difference in observation or memory
» Does not necessarily imply falsehood
• Delay of the witness in revealing to the authorities what
he knows of the crime – does not render his testimony
false
» Attributed to natural reticence and abhorrence to
get involved in a criminal case
» Or inherent fear of reprisal
» Or intense grief
• Relationship of witness to the victim – does not impair
his clear and positive testimony nor give it lesser credit
» Unless there is a showing of improper motive
Tunala vs. Diola (CA, 62 OG 4946)
Where a party resorts to falsehood to advance his suit,
it is presumed that he knows perfectly well that his cause is
groundless, and this presumption affects the whole mass of
evidence presented by such party
• Affidavits – generally subordinated in importance to open
court declarations
» Often executed when the affiant is at a high pitch of
excitement
» Not complete reproductions of what the declarant
have in mind because they are generally prepared
by the administering officer and the affiant simply
signs after the same have been read to him
» Discrepancies between the affidavit and the open
court statement
▪ Do not discredit the witness because ex parte
affidavits are generally incomplete for want of
suggestion and inquiries
▪ Does not apply where the self-contradiction or
inconsistencies are on very material and
substantial matters
Index
Evidence
» Only prima facie evidence of weak probative force
and should be received with caution
• Conspiracy – need not establish that all parties agreed to
every detail
» Enough that it may be reasonably deduced that
they had a common plan to commit the felony
» But must be proven beyond reasonable doubt
» Need not be established by direct evidence
▪ May be proved by a number of indefinite acts,
conditions and circumstances
• Qualifying and aggravating circumstances – must be
proved in an evident and incontestable manner
» As conclusively as the crime itself
• Self-defense – one who sets up must rely on the strength
of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution
» Quantum: clear and convincing evidence
• Alibi – one of the weakest defenses
» May be considered only when established by
positive, clear and satisfactory evidence
» Must be physically impossible for the accused to be
at the scene of the crime at the time of the
commission
» Strong defense when there is no positive and proper
identification of the accused as the author of the
offense
» When set up, the court should not at once have a
mental prejudice against him
People vs. Aquiedo (108 Phil 186)
Where one accused withdraws his appeal after realizing
the futility of his defense, and the other escapes from
confinement thereby causing the dismissal of his appeal, said
acts are unmistakable signs of guilt
• Flight – evidence of guilt and a guilty conscience
» “The wicked flee even when no man pursueth,
whereas the righteous are as brave as a lion”
» Non-flight – not an indication of innocence
• Payment of taxes
» Continuous payment – evidence of great weight in
favor of ownership, especially if accompanied by
OCEAN possession
▪ But not conclusive evidence of ownership
» Non-payment – indicative of the fact that claimant
does not believe himself to be the owner of the
property
• Motive of the accused in a criminal case – immaterial
» But necessary in the following instances:
1. Where identity of the assailant is in question
2. To determine the voluntariness of the criminal
act or the sanity of the accused
3. To determine from which side the unlawful
aggression commenced (self-defense)
4. To determine the specific nature of the crime
committed (murder or homicide)
5. To determine whether the shooting was
intentional or accidental
6. Where the accused contended that he acted in
the defense of a stranger
7. Where the evidence is circumstantial and
inconclusive
8. Where malice is an element of the offense
» Mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, cannot
sustain a conviction if there is no other evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused
» Evidence is weak, without any motive – reasonable
doubt
• “Totality of circumstance” test – used for the
admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identification
of suspects
» Factors:
1. Witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the
time of the crime
2. Witness’ degree of attention at the time
3. Accuracy of any prior description given by the
witness
4. Level of certainty demonstrated by the witness
at the identification
5. Length of time between the crime and the
identification
6. Suggestiveness of the identification procedure
azereth
page 41
• Res ipsa loquitur – the fact of the occurrence of an
injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may
permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence
or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case and present a
question of fact for the defendant to meet with an
explanation
» Doctrine is merely evidentiary or procedural in
nature
▪ Does not dispense with the requirement of
proof of negligence
Section 3 - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION, NOT
SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR CONVICTION
An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall
not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
• Corpus delicti – actual commission by someone of the
particular crime charged
» Common fact made up of 2 things:
Existence of a certain act or result forming the basis
of the criminal charge
Existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the
act or result
» Identity of the accused not a necessary element
» Literally means “body of the crime”
» Proved when the evidence on record shows that the
crime prosecuted had been committed
• Theft: corpus delicti –
1. Property was lost by the owner
2. It was lost by felonious taking
» Crime may be established without recovery of the
property
• Illegal possession of firearms
1. Existence of the firearm
2. It has actually been held with animus possidendi by
the accused without the corresponding license
• Murder: corpus delicti is the fact of death
» Where there is doubt as to the identity of the
cadaver, in the absence of any other evidence,
there is no corpus delicti
• A mere voluntary extrajudicial confession uncorroborated
by independent proof of corpus delicti is not sufficient to
sustain a judgment of conviction
» Evidence may be circumstantial but it must
substantiate the confession
» But corpus delicti is not synonymous with the whole
charge
▪ Need not require that all the elements of the
crime be established independently
▪ Were it required that, independent of the
confession, evidence be adduced sufficient in
itself to convict, the utility of a confession as a
species of proof would be illusory
People vs. Sasota (91 Phil 111)
When the complex crime of robbery with homicide is
charged and the extrajudicial confession of the accused of the
entire charge is corroborated by corpus delicti of homicide
alone, the entire confession is admissible although there is no
independent evidence of the robbery
Section 4 - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN
SUFFICIENT
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
a. There is more than one circumstances;
b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
People vs. Tan-Choco; People vs. Jara (1986)
In order to convict a person accused of a crime on the
strength of circumstantial evidence alone, it is incumbent
upon the prosecution to present such circumstantial evidence
which will and must necessarily lead to the conclusion that the
accused is guilty of the crime charged beyond reasonable
doubt, excluding all and each and every reasonable hypothesis
consistent with his innocence
• Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction in
capital offenses
Index
Evidence
» Except when law specifies the quantum of evidence,
such as in treason
» Falsification, bigamy and libel - circumstantial
evidence not sufficient to sustain a conviction
▪ Documents involved must be presented
▪ Bigamy: direct evidence of first marriage is
necessary
• Reputation or cohabitation merely
corroborative
• Same as in adultery, parricide or other
cases where issue of marriage is primarily
involved
• Prior and coetaneous, as well as subsequent, acts of the
accused are circumstantial evidence of guilt
• While motive of the accused is generally immaterial not
being an element of the crime, such motive becomes
important when the evidence of the crime is purely
circumstantial

People vs. Turtoga (2002)

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

Section 5 - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial
bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is
supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

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

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

• Or evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent

men in the conduct of their affairs

Section 6 - POWER OF THE COURT TO STOP FURTHER

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

Guinea vs. Vda. De Ramonal (1975)

The court has the power to stop the introduction of
testimony which will merely be cumulative

Section 7 - EVIDENCE ON MOTION

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

Sapida vs. De Villanueva (1972)

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

azereth
page 42