Summary Evidence 2
Summary Evidence 2
EVIDENCE
I. INTRODUCTION
÷
1. 1987 Constitution;
2. Rules 128 to 134 of the Rules of Court;
3. Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15- 06-10
SC);
4. Resolution of the Supreme Court dated March 14, 1989 on the proposed rules on
evidence;
5. Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, effective January 1, 2013);
6. Child Witness Examination Rule (A.M. No. 004-07-sc, December 15, 2000);
7. DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007);
8. Electronic Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 01-7-01 SC);
9. Rule 115 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure;
10. R.A. No. 4200 otherwise known as the Anti-Wire Tapping Act;
11. R.A. No. 9372, otherwise known as the Human Securities Act;
12. Substantive and remedial statute; and
13. Judicial decisions.
B. Give 20 rules of evidence that are found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
x x x.
x x x nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
Page 2 of 112
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right
to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, as may be provided by law.
The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors,
to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not
be abridged.
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance
shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
(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
Page 3 of 112
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
the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(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.
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to
bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process
of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel,
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have
a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to
have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been
duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases
of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an
act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts
as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the Government.
No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or motion
for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied
without stating the legal basis therefor.
6. Art. 2199 of the NCC (Torts) – Actual damages require proof of pecuniary loss.
7. Art. 2216 of the NCC (Torts) – No proof of pecuniary loss is required in order that
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary.
10. Art. 1769 (4) – The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is
prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business.
11. Art. 1785 – A continuation of the business by the partners or such of them as
habitually acted therein during the term, without any settlement or liquidation of the
partnership affairs, is prima facie evidence of a continuation of the partnership.
13. Art. 255 – Children born after one hundred and eighty days following the
celebration of the marriage, and before three hundred days following its dissolution
or the separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be legitimate. Against this
presumption no evidence shall be admitted other than that of the physical
impossibility of the husband's having access to his wife within the first one hundred
and twenty days of the three hundred which preceded the birth of the child.
-
NOTE: Rule on evidence is technical (they are mere tools that assists the court in
ascertaining the truth with respect to a matter of fact).
authorized
/
RULE 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS. Section 1. Evidence defined. – Evidence
is the means, sanctioned by these [R]ules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
v.
the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1) –
If you look on NPS rules, you will find there some provisions of evidence
that are adopted in their rules.
KINDS OF TRUTH
1. absolute truth, - -
2. LEGAL TRUTH – this based on law and evidence – this is what the court
uses in approximation of truth. – if what has been presented as evidence,
then that is the only basis for the outcome of the case – the outcome of the
case relies solely in the evidence presented. (Financial status and the
caliber of the lawyer is not the basis) – EMPHASIS
Considering that the Rules on Evidence is part of the Rules of Court, it shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of securing just,
r
speedy,
- and inexpensive
_
disposition of every action and proceeding. Evidence which appears to be of doubtful
relevancy, incompetency, or admissibility of evidence, the safer policy is to be liberal and
not reject them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admit them unless plainly irrelevant,
immaterial or incompetent.
Just
speedy
in expensive
Page 7 of 112
”Evidence” is understood in the sense of being the “materials presented in court” and not
a methodology or proof.
Evidence is the medium of proof in ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact.
Liberally construed.
It is merely the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the
mind resulting from consideration.
NOTE: Used interchangeably with evidence – but is not actually the same. The
2019 amendment, the SC expressly stated the burden of evidence. There is a
difference between evidence and proof.
Evidence Proof
As to what it proves A matter of fact Issue / Matters in Issue
Tangible = ex: object Intangible = it is just an idea. It is
evidence, you can hear the degree of persuasion that is
As to form it (testimony) created in the mind of the judge
that the person was killed by the
accused.
rAs to effect rSuggestive r Conclusive
Ex: In proof, X murdered B. While the evidence to be presented in the murder case is X
used a knife to kill B. X collided to the car of B which resulted in the process of killing B.
(object evidence); And testimonies from witnesses who may have seen X using the knife
and the car.
The knife by itself will not prove the issue in this case. The issue in a criminal case is
whether the accused is guilty of the offense charged. In order to resolve the issue, you
OSCOPY
duct dactyl
✓
Page 8 of 112
need proof. But in order to have proof, you need evidence. The knife by itself will not
prove that X killed B; the car by itself will not prove that X killed B; the testimony by itself
will not prove that X killed B. But if you put them together, and you are able to prove all
the elements, then you have proof that X is guilty of the offense. In this case, it is the
prosecution that has the burden of proof.
Under normal circumstances, the person who has the burden of proof has also the burden
of evidence. But under certain circumstances, there will be a shifting of the burden of
evidence.
Ex: in cases of self-defense, the accused admits to the crime committed, but he must
prove the existence of the fact that he committed the crime in self-defense (elements of
self-defense). The burden of evidence is shifted to the accused wherein he must prove
that he committed the crime in self-defense therefore he is not liable. So, if the prosecution
rested its case, the burden of evidence shifted to the defense
DUTY
NOTE: the BURDEN OF PROOF, DOES NOT SHIFT. Incorporated in the rules. So, it is
the burden of evidence that will shift (e.g. Self defense, there is a modification of order
of trial because there is shifting of burden of evidence)
totality
PRIMA FACIE CASE - A prima facie case is that amount of evidence which would
be sufficient to counter-balance the general presumption of innocence, and
warrant a conviction, if not encountered and controlled by evidence tending to
contradict it, and render it improbable, or to prove other facts inconsistent with it,
and the establishment of a prima facie case does not take away the presumption
of innocence which may in the opinion of the jury be such as to rebut and control
it.
1. It is just that, by the admission of the accused of the commission of the act,
the state no longer has the burden of evidence
2. because there is already proof (presumption) which consist of the admission
by the accused.
Evidence Proof
There is proof only because of
1 Proof is not evidence itself
evidence
2 The medium of proof Effect or result of evidence
3 Suggestive in nature Conclusive in nature
Raw pieces of information or
A firm confirmation about the fact being
material that can be approved or
4 true after scrutinizing evidence
disproved
( shows that a statement is true)
(shows that a certain fact exists)
Explanation of #3: The knife, the car, and the testimony is only suggestive because it is
probable that X killed B (they are merely suggestive by itself). The knife was found in the
Page 9 of 112
possession of the accused. It would suggest that the knife would have been used by the
accused, but it does not necessarily conclude that X killed B.
Explanation of #4: the knife has blood in it, it could prove that it was used to stabbed
somebody. The car, if there is a hair stuck, then it could prove that it bumped something
or someone. As to the testimony, could prove that what the witness said happened. The
facts that are established by the evidence to exists are called the evidentiary facts.
to Refers to the ultimate fact to be proven, Refers to the evidentiary facts by which the
Fatt
facts or the proposition to be established. factum probandum will be proved.
be
proven That, which a party
wants to prove to the court.
Hypothetical Existent
Examples: guilt or innocence; existence Examples: the written contract; the
of a breach of contract; existence of an promissory note to prove the existence of
obligation; the fact of payment; the an unpaid debt.
injury or damage incurred.
In short, factum probandum is the purpose why you are presenting your evidence.
Factum probans would be the using of the knife, and car, testimony. Referring to the facts
established by the pieces of evidence. So, from evidence, you derive your factum
probans. Based on the factum probans, we establish the factum probandum. Factum
probandum is that murder occurred.
Ex: In this case for murder, the element of the act of killing is a factum probandum. The
mortal wound is a factum probans (also an evidence). We have to show the wound (depth
of the wound, etc.) to the Court if it is mortal or not. The evidence to be presented is
testimony from the expert witness, pictures of the wound, autopsy report. The element to
be proven might be treachery and intent to kill, nature of the wound.
To prove intent to kill, the pieces of evidence that will be presented are not the knife, car
or testimony, but others.
From your pieces of evidence, your means. You are going to derive evidentiary facts from
that pieces of evidence. And that evidentiary facts are what you call factum probans. And
you use that factum probans to prove that matter of fact. And that matter of fact is your
factum probandum.
We are quantifying the degree of persuasion (proof) that is created by the evidence
presented.
Hierarchy of Evidence:
Rule 133, Section 2, Revised Rules on Evidence. 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 certainty only is required,
or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
2. Contempt proceedings
While the proof need not be beyond reasonable doubt, it must amount to more than a
mere preponderance of evidence. It has been said that the burden of proof in a civil
contempt proceeding lies somewhere between the criminal "reasonable doubt" burden
and the civil "fair preponderance" burden. (Oca vs. Custodio, G.R. No. 199825, July 26,
2017)
3. Civil cases
In civil cases, the basic rule is that the party making allegations has the burden of proving
them by a preponderance of evidence. Moreover, the parties must rely on the strength of
their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent. (Tan
vs. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, February 3, 2016)
4. Disbarment proceedings
The Court has repeatedly stressed that in administrative complaints for disbarment and
suspension against lawyers, the required quantum of proof is clear preponderant
evidence. Preponderance of evidence means evidence which is of greater weight, or
more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. The onus probandi lies on
the complainant, who is duty-bound to prove the veracity of the allegations in his
complaint by a preponderance of evidence. (Anacin vs.Salonga, A.C N. 876, January 8,
2020)
Page 11 of 112
5. Administrative cases
6. Preliminary investigation
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than
not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause
need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence
establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing
absolute certainty of guilt. As well put in Brinegar v. United States, while probable cause
demands more than "bare suspicion," it requires "less than evidence which would justify
. . . conviction." A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial.
It is not a pronouncement of guilt. (Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015)
- MISSING
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. (Republic of
the Philippines vs. Alfredo R. De Borja, G.R. No. 187448)
Generally speaking, burden of proof in its second concept passes from party to party as
the case progresses, while in its first concept it rests throughout upon the party asserting
the affirmative of the issue.
Page 12 of 112
The duty of producing evidence, or the burden of going forward with the evidence, or
simply the production burden or the burden of evidence. (Far East Bank trust Company
vs. Roberto Mar Chante, G.R. No. 170598 October 9, 2013)
It is the duty of producing evidence at the beginning or at any subsequent stage of trial in
order to make or meet a prima facie case.
Generally, whoever claims something to be true has the burden of proving it.
Intent to kill vs. criminal intent in homicide. In criminal offense, it is not enough to prove
the elements of the offense, but must also prove the mens rea (criminal intent/ malicious
intent).
The state/ prosecution has the burden of proof when it comes to the elements of the
offense charged as well as the mens rea. The burden of proof does not shift no matter
what the accused does. So, the state has still the burden of proving the elements of the
offense charged and the criminal intent.
Ex: The accused admitted of stabbing the person. And from his act of stabbing the
person and the person died, there is a presumption that the act was done with an
unlawful intent. When that happens, there is a shifting of the burden of evidence
because as far as the state is concerned, it no longer has the burden of presenting
evidence to prove that accused has stabbed the person and that the person was
killed with intent. The accused will now present evidence to prove that it was not
with intention to kill the person.
Even with the admission of the accused that he stabbed the person and the person
died, and there is a rebuttable presumption that he was not able to refute, the
prosecution still has the burden of proving the criminal intent of the accused.
1. Form
:
a. Object Evidence (Real) – evidence directly addressed to the senses of the court
and is capable of being exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
b. Documentary Evidence – it consists of writings or any material containing letters,
words, numbers, figures, symbols, or other modes of written expressions offered
as proof of their contents.
Page 13 of 112
2. Relevancy
It has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence
(memorize Rule 128, Section 4)
1. Direct Evidence – evidence which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any
inference of presumption. The witness testifies directly of his own knowledge as to
the main facts to be proved
- you don’t need to make inferences because it proves directly the existence
or non-existence of the fact. No need to infer this (I was standing right in
front of the establishment when the accused used a pair of scissors to cut
the gate of the establishment)
- very relevant
- they do not directly prove the matter of fact. But if you put them together, you
can come up with an inference that the matter of fact exists or does not exist.
- you need make inferences because it indirectly proves the fact in issue.
- not that relevant, that’s why you qualify it as circumstantial, you have to link
them together.
Ex: One witness saw A holding the pair of scissors for cutting steels.
When a witness saw A going in the establishment and coming out carrying
a jewelry box.
Direct and Circumstantial evidence have the same probative value. Once the pieces of
evidence would qualify as circumstantial, meaning when you put them together, they
create a link that would necessarily link/lead? To the matter of fact that you’re trying to
prove. That would make it circumstantial evidence.
If you cannot prove them to be creating a single link/lead? going towards the fact that you
are going to prove. Then what you have is not circumstantial evidence, what you have is
irrelevant evidence (evidence on collateral matter). it is inadmissible. But once you put all
that irrelevant evidence together, and they create a link towards what you’re trying to
prove, then that becomes circumstantial evidence.
Once your evidence on collateral matters do not lead directly to what you are trying to
prove but they prove collateral matters that may lead to what you’re trying to prove. Once
you prove them to be circumstantial evidence, they will have the same probative value as
the direct evidence that you may have.
If you have to prove something which is contained by the document under your
original document rule which was used to be called the Original Document Rule
(formerly known as best evidence rule), it is the original document that you should
present, and you will not be allowed to present any other evidence other than the
original copy. It is only when you satisfy certain requirements like if you can prove exclusionary
that the original document got lost or was destroyed that you will be allowed to
present secondary evidence. In that sense, your primary evidence is considered rule
exclusionary.
Ex: instead of presenting the deed of sale, present a photocopy if I can’t present
any original copy. (just to illustrate because a photocopy may be a primary
evidence depending on the objections to the admissibility of evidence.) If you prove
that you can’t present the original copy (e.g. it wasn’t acknowledged so there
wasn’t a copy in the OCC; or it was just a private document) because of
circumstances taken in the Rules of Court, it is only then that you are allowed to
present secondary evidence to prove the terms of the deed of sale.
Best Evidence
Page 15 of 112
Rule
But if you have the original copy then you cannot present the photocopy because
the presentation of the original would exclude the presentation of the other copies.
The doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree which is the exclusionary rule to
make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was
illegally obtained = the poisonous tree is the primary evidence; the fruit is the
secondary evidence.
Ex: you smiled at the police. The police didn’t like your smile so he frisked you and
found a sachet of shabu. They interrogated you in a police station, you
admitted/confessed just because of the shabu. The sachet of shabu is a primary
evidence. That confession (fruit of poisonous tree) is derived from the primary
evidence (sachet of shabu). So, if you are going to exclude that in evidence, then
your basis for the exclusion of the confession would be the doctrine of the
poisonous tree. The basis or ground for exclusion of the shabu is the exclusionary
rule (obtained in violation of the Constitutional right of the accused), not the
doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree because it is not the fruit but it is the tree.
In the derivative, there is no exclusion, meaning, you can present in evidence the
shabu, you can present the testimony if you want because the shabu does not
exclude the testimony. Unlike in the documentary evidence where you will not be
allowed to present secondary evidence.
There is a difference between the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree and
exclusionary rule.
4. Source (People vs. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487 Dec. 12, 1995)
According to this rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been
unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the " fruit ") derived from it is
also inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result
of the illegal act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same
illegal act.
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized
evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence
illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the
originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.
Primary evidence is a kind of evidence which assures the greatest certainty of fact
sought to be proved, and which does not in itself, indicate the existence of other and
Page 16 of 112
better proof. (Delta Motors Sales Corporation vs Bernardo, 66261-R, May 21, 1981) –
THE TREE.
Secondary Evidence is any evidence other than the document itself. Also known as
Substitutionary Evidence. – THE FRUIT. “an evidence derived from the primary evidence”
The difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence involves the
relationship of the fact inferred to the facts that constitute the offense. Their difference
does not relate to the probative value of the evidence.
Positive evidence – when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts does
exist or than a certain event happened.
EFFECTS: Positive evidence would be in support of the claim of the person who is
presenting positive evidence.
- Positive evidence has greater probative value because a witness will testify that
the certain event happened instead of testifying that a certain event did not
happen.
- If there is an averment, you are telling that a certain event happened.
Negative evidence – when the witness states that an event did not occur or that the state
of facts alleged to exist does not actually exist.
Ex: The witness testified that A did not kill B in so far as the evidence of the other party
is concerned (the other witness testified that A killed B).
The general rule is that positive evidence prevails over negative evidence, or that a
positive assertion is given more weight over a plain denial.
Credibility of the evidence = it is the degree of its proximity to the truth. Therefore, if closer
to the truth, it is more credible.
prima facie
AA AO
kinds of
Page 18 of 112
Admissibility
I
III. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Ex: Case of reckless imprudence, X ran over a pedestrian. In court the prosecution
asks X about the color of his hair. Defense lawyer will object that the question is
irrelevant. If the prosecutor will say, we will show the relevance (e.g. color blind)
later on. Then, you can allow the question CONDITIONALLY. So, later on, if
prosecution is not able to prove the relevance of the question, then exclude that
portion of testimony from the record.
/ more
2. MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY - Where the evidence is relevant and competent for
two or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all purposes two
for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its
admissibility therefore.
purpose
One piece of evidence must be admitted for several purposes so that in case it will
not be admitted for one purpose, it will not affect the other purposes.
① nee
Example: Oral statement of a dying person may be treated as a dying declaration s
if such person dies, otherwise it will be considered as part of res gestae.
of
sale
deed
②
pro !%¥sniTwpÉty
Homicide kill ins the ¥
③ prove
or
-
criminal
intent
posses polar
murder me
-
Page 19 of 112
things done transacted
things
Res gestae = Under the Hearsay rule, a court normally refuses to admit as
evidence statements that a witness says he or she heard another person say. The
doctrine of res gestae provided an exception to this rule.
Ex: Present the knife, the length of the blade, the knife has blood, the knife has a
name engraved at the handle. The piece of evidence is the knife. If the court will
look at the knife, they will state that the knife has a 10-inch blade (no need to infer,
factum probans); The knife has blood stains (factum probans); engraved name in
the handle of the knife (factum probans- you are just stating what you are looking
at). Factum probandum = By stating that the knife has a 10-inch blade, the
proposition that you are trying to prove is that it was the knife that was used to
inflict the wound on the victim which has a depth of 5 inches. By stating that the
knife has an engraving at the handle of the knife, the proposition that you are trying Factnm
probandum
to prove is that the knife belongs to the accused. By stating that the knife has a
hyiholhetical
bloodstain, the proposition that you are trying to prove is that the knife was used
to stab the victim and not an animal.
So just one piece of evidence, you are going to offer it for several purposes. You
are going to offer one single evidence to prove several factum probandum (facta teething
probanda).
weight
3. CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY - This doctrine treats upon the right of a party to
or
introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted the
same kind of evidence (inadmissible evidence) adduced by the adverse party. It is
allowed to answer the inadmissible evidence. indenting Factum
/ There is a defect, and you are able to present evidence only to cure the defect. pro
bans
The defect is the admission of a piece of evidence which would otherwise have
been disallowed.
existence
to
Q: Why is inadmissible evidence allowed to be admitted as evidence? help
A: It is either the opposing counsel or the judge is sleeping during the trial. But it
is always the opposing counsel. That’s why later on, you should pay attention when
prove
the opposing counsel is presenting his witness you should be vigilant, you should
object timely. Because if you don’t object to the presentation of inadmissible
evidence and the judge would just allow it, then that is the reason why inadmissible
L
1. Axiom of relevancy – none but facts having rational probative value are
admissible.
Components of relevancy:
Ex: In an action for sum of money based on a promissory note, evidence that
the defendant was misled into signing the note would be rationally relevant but
if fraud was never alleged as a defense, then evidence in this case would be
legally irrelevant or immaterial.
connection either directly or by inference between the fact offered and the fact to be
proved. (People of the Philippines vs. Zakaria, GR No. 181042, November 26, 2012)
Section 4, Rule 128. Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence. (memorize)
Evidence is competent when the evidence is not otherwise excluded by the Constitution,
law or by the Rules of Court. (Sec 3, Rule 128, Rules of Court)
COMPETENT
H. What is the difference between the relevancy and competency of evidence?
Reference: Fernando Mancol Jr. vs. DBP (G.R. 204289 dated Nov. 22, 2017)
In relevancy, the evidence must have a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief as
to its existence or non-existence.
In competency of evidence, the evidence must not be excluded by law or by the rules.
Ex: of what is competent but irrelevant: When you frisk X with probable cause and you
found a sachet of shabu and 1 ballpen. You charge him for illegal possession of drugs.
What is the relevance of the ballpen if he will offer it in evidence? NONE. reasonable
Ex: of what might be relevant but not competent. When you frisk X without probable cause
ground
and you found a sachet of shabu and 1 ballpen. Is the shabu relevant to the illegal
possession of drugs? YES.
But is it competent? NO, because of the way that you obtained it. It is excluded, it is
inadmissible. It is incompetent.
while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to
convince and persuade.
The admissibility of a particular item of evidence has to do with whether it meets the
various tests by which its reliability is to be determined, so as to be considered with other
evidence admitted in the case in arriving at a decision as to the truth
Page 22 of 112
Weight of evidence, on the other hand, refers to the question of whether the admitted Pino prove
evidence proves an issue. (Fernando Mancol Jr. vs. DBP, G.R. No. 204289, November ba hug
22, 2017) in
/ Fact
J. What are rules of exclusion in general? issue
Anything that would exclude the admission of other pieces of evidence. ex: original
document rule
Otherwise known as the exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, this
constitutional provision originated from Stonehill v. Diokno.
This rule prohibits the issuance of general warrants that encourage law enforcers to go
on fishing expeditions. Evidence obtained through unlawful seizures should be excluded
as evidence because it is "the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional
injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures."
Exclusionary Rule Principle - the principle which mandates that evidence obtained from
an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive investigation, or in violation of a
particular law, must be excluded from the trial and will not be admitted as evidence.
1. Those obtained in violation of the Anti-Wire Tapping Law (R.A. No. 4200);
2. Those obtained in violation of the Human Securities Act (R.A. No. 9372); Protect people Act
from
the
3. Evidence is not admissible if obtained in violation of Law on Secrecy of Bank
Deposits (R.A. No. 1405, as amended by PD 1792)
↳ .wvisr ¥
4. Evidence in case of violation of the Sexual Shield Abuse Rule.
5. Child witness law. (R.A. No. 7610) unlawful
↳ evidence to disclose
◦
f- specific
instances
of sexual victim
conduct by the
Page 23 of 112
M. Give 5 rules of exclusion found in procedural laws aside from the Rules of
Court.
NAOL!
IV. PROOF AND QUANTUM OF PROOF
A. When is proof or evidence necessary?
1. Facts which are the subject of judicial notice (Rule 129, Secs. 1-3)
2. Facts which are admitted (Rule 129, Sec. 4)
3. Matters which are not specifically denied in the answer (Rule 8, Sec. 10)
4. Facts which are legally presumed (Rule 131, Sec. 2-3)
5. Those which are the subject of an Agreement, the statement of facts between
①
the parties (Rule 30, Sec. 5)
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take
and act on without proof because they already know them. (Pp v. Tundag, G.R. Nos.
135895- 96, Oct. 12, 2000)
A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of:
E-
1. the existence and territorial extent of states,
The road coming from Trinidad to Baguio at the area of Supreme Hotel, can
I take judicial notice, the fact that it is ascending? No
Page 25 of 112
Requisites:
Requisites:
3. matters which are ought to be known to all judges because of their judicial
functions.
4. What are the rules anent judicial notice of court proceedings and
judgments? - EMPHASIS
As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial knowledge of the
contents of the record of other cases, in the adjudication of cases pending before
them, even though the trial judge in fact knows or remembers the contents thereof,
or even when said other cases have been heard or are pending in the same court
and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are really
pending before the same judge. (Municipal Council vs. Colegio de San Jose, et al.,
G.R. No. L-45460; 31 C.J.S. 623- 624; cited in p. 25, Evidence, Second Ed.; R.J.
Francisco)
Exception:
1. A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case,
2. of facts established in prior proceedings in the same case,
3. of the authenticity of its own records of another case between the same
parties,
4. of the files of related cases in the same court, and
5. of public records on file in the same court.
6. In addition judicial notice will be taken of the record, pleadings or judgment
of a case in another court between the same parties or involving one of the
same parties, -
7. as well as of the record of another case between different parties in the same
court.
8. Judicial notice will also be taken of court personnel. (Paras, Rules of Court
Annotated, Vol. 4, 1991 Ed., p. 52.)
Yes, in MTCs. Inferior courts should take mandatory judicial notice of municipal or
city ordinance in force in their territorial jurisdiction. (2 Regalado, supra at 833)
Page 26 of 112
RTC may not take judicial notice approved by municipalities under their territorial
jurisdiction. Except:
1. So required by law (City of Manila v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-26053, February 21,
1967)
2. On appeal to it from the inferior court in which the latter took judicial notice.
(U.S. v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-9699, August 26, 1915)
No. Foreign judgment do not prove themselves nor can a court take judicial notice
on them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved. (Garcia-Recio v.
Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001)
1. What is a presumption?
Is a rule of law directing that if a party of certain facts at a trial or hearing, the fact
finder must also accept an additional fact as proven unless sufficient evidence is
introduce intending to rebut the presumed fact. (29 Am Jur 2d s 181)
NOTE:
A presumption has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the party who would
be disadvantaged by a finding of the presumed fact. The presumption controls
decision on the presumed fact unless there is counterproof that the presumed fact
is not so. (Modesto Mabunga vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. No. 142039 May
27, 2004)
Page 27 of 112
In sum, presumptions shift the burden of producing evidence with regard to the
presumed fact.
NOTE: In presumptions, you will need to present the basis, that is why it is not
included in Rule 129 (What need not be proved).
PRESUMPTION INFERENCE
an absolute requirement that the jury allows a jury to ignore the conclusion
must follow in a criminal case that is normally drawn with respect to an
inference.
has a mandatory effect in criminal has very little effect because its
cases conclusion is so weak.
deduction of fact that a jury “must” draw has less strength and a jury has the
if the first fact on which it is based is ability to draw the deduction or to refuse
proved, but it is not required to make the to draw the deduction with respect to an
deduction in a criminal case inference in a criminal case.
A jury has the discretion not to follow a A jury is required to follow an inference
presumption even if the preliminary in a criminal case
fact has been proven.
DISCUSSION:
There is a knife and there is a wound. The knife is pointed, double bladed
and 10 inches long. The wound is an incision (clean cut), and is about 4
inches deep. If I look at the knife, that’s your evidence, I will derive from the
knife an evidentiary fact:
1. The blade is 10 inches long, and double sided and a pointed edge (factum
probans). Putting them together and try to see if it is possible that the knife
was used to inflict that incision (factum probandum). By experience, if the
knife is sharp and double edged and 10 inches, then the wound inflicted
would be clean cut with that 4-inch depth.
What is the effect if a disputable presumption has not been disputed? It shall
be enough to prove a matter of fact.
If you have established that it was the knife that was used to stab the victim
will it cause the shifting of the burden of evidence? Yes, it will shift
The presumption of fact, what effect does it have on the burden of evidence?
has no effect.
In coming up with the presumption of facts, the party has already satisfied its
burden of evidence. From the evidence presented by the party, the judge was
able to incur another fact. (inference of the judge= it was the knife that was
used to inflict the wound) Now, it’s up to the other party to disprove it. So
there’s a shifting of burden of evidence.
When you say shifting of burden of evidence, you have to disprove something
which has been proven. After the party has presented his evidence and the
party has prima facie case, then if the other party will not present evidence,
that prima facie case is sufficient as a basis for granting the claim for the party
who presented it.
Prima facie evidence is what will create a prima facie case. Does it
necessarily shift the burden of evidence? Yes, the burden of evidence is
shifted but only to contradict the presumption that has been established. In a
civil case, the quantum of evidence needed is preponderance of evidence.
1. Estoppel to deny validity of sale as when the wife, in collusion with the
husband, concealed her true status induce her parents to believe she is
single and to a property which in truth is conjugal. The husband cannot deny
the validity of the deed
2. The heirs who represented the minors in a suit for partition cannot impugn
the validity of the judgment for lack of proper authorization
3. Jurisdiction by estoppel
Page 29 of 112
4. Agency/Partnership by estoppel
5. The relationship is that between parties to an original contract of lease ( not
sublease) involving a real property. The tenant refers to the lessee. What is
deemed conclusive as to the tenant is the ownership of the lessor over
property.
6. A child below the age of criminal responsibility cannot be held legally
responsible for his/her actions and so cannot be convicted of a criminal
offense.
7. The presumption that, in the case of a sex crime, is that a minor is incapable
of providing consent.
8. A man who represents himself to be the true owner in a sale will not be
permitted later to deny the sale after he acquire title thereto.
9. The lessee cannot use his physical possession over the property as basis to
dispossess the lessor of the latter’s ownership. The law seeks to protect
owners of real property from being deprived of their ownership by those in
actual physical possession who are their own lessees.
10. Ignoring law is not an excuse to break the law.
Before you can draw a conclusive presumption, you need to prove that:
If you are able to prove those and there is no other conclusion that the person
is really an agent. It is a conclusive presumption because of the principle of
estoppel.
So, you have a set of facts and you apply a certain principle and then you
draw a conclusion.
If you have that conclusion in your favor, do you still need to prove that the
person is an agent? NO. So, there is a shifting of the burden of evidence.
What will the person prove? That he is not the agent. But since this is a
conclusive presumption, it will not be allowed to be overturned by any
contrary proof.
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact. (Rule 130 Sec. 27)
Requisites:
DISCUSSION:
In the example, the admission was made in the answer. And he admitted that
he received the money, that’s why you don’t have to present proof anymore.
The admission came from the defendant (a party), a written admission that
he acknowledges receiving the money and it is done in the course of the
proceeding because the filing of an answer is a necessary step in the
litigation of the case. And it was done in the same case.
In a criminal case, serious physical injuries while they are waiting for the
prosecutor, the judge asked the accused and the complainant if they can still
settle. The accused said “kasla ka met gamin sigsiguru di sinapak da ka’’, the
judge heard that. Is that an oral admission? Yes, he is a party and he made
an oral admission of punching the complainant; But it is not made in the
course of the proceeding because it was made before the formal proceeding
started. Hence, this is not a judicial admission.
NOTE: There are admissions, although done in the course of the proceedings, they
cannot be admitted in evidence. They may be considered judicial admissions but
they are inadmissible because they are prohibited by the rule to be presented as
evidence. These are admissions made in connection with the court annex
mediation, judicial dispute resolution because they are competent. Admissions
made in the court of a compromise agreement would not be admissible.
The admissions must be in writing and signed by the accused and counsel for it to
be binding.
Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the admissions. Pre-trial
admission in civil cases is one the instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided
for under Section 7, Rule 18, which mandates that the contents of the pre-trial order
shall control the subsequent course of the action, thereby, defining and limiting the
issues to be tried. Under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a judicial
admission requires no proof (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v, BPI/MS Insurance
Corporation [2015])
Ex: When the witness would testify and upon hearing the testimony of the
witness, the opposing counsel would make an offer if they can stipulate the
testimony of the witness then, he will no longer present the witness (this is
after pre-trial).
In the pre-trial, we are only talking about the accused. So, if we are talking
about the private complainant during the pretrial, and he did not sign the pre-
trial, then it’s okay because it will be binding upon him. What is required is
only for the accused.
GENERAL RULE: Yes, the client is bound by the mistakes arising from negligence
of his own counsel. (Juani v. Alarcon, G.R. No. 166849, September 5, 2006, 501
SCRA 135, 153; Uy v. Adriano, G.R. No. 159098, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 625,
648-649.)
EXCEPTION: The only exception to this rule is, as the Court of Appeals itself cited
in its decision, when the negligence is so gross that the client is deprived of his day
in court.
The party is still bound by the admission and is conclusive as to him. (Silot v. De La
Rosa, G.R. No. 159240 February 4, 2008).
The judicial affidavit is considered a direct testimony of the accused. It is part of the
proceeding.
Page 32 of 112
If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his
sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence. (Rule 119, Sec. 17)
If the state witness refuses or fails to testify, sworn statement and any other
testimony given shall not be admissible in evidence. (R.A. No. 6981)
Rule 26: for the purpose of the pending action only and shall not constitute an
admission in any other proceeding
The party who made the admission if there is a showing that it was made thru
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made (Sps. Manzanilla v.
Waterfields Industries Corporation [2014])
10. May the admission of one accused on the witness stand be taken
against his co-accused?
No. The general rule that the admission of an accused may be given in evidence
against him but that it is not competent evidence against his co-accused. (People v.
Manatad, G.R. No. 70091 December 29, 1986)
Page 33 of 112
The retraction is an afterthought which should not be given probative value. It would
be a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before the court of justice simply
because the witness who has given it later on changed his mind for one reason or
another. (People v. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 147662-63, 15 August 2003)
1. What is a confession?
- MISSING
10. That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
which a person possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by
him;
11. That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the
money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing
accordingly;
12. That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to
it;
13. That official duty has been regularly performed;
14. That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere,
was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
15. That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court
and passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue
raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators
and passed upon by them;
16. That private transactions have been fair and regular;
17. That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
18. That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
19. That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient
consideration;
20. That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the
instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated;
21. That a writing is truly dated;
22. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of
the mail;
23. That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the
absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those
of succession.
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by
law. (Section 1, Rule 131, Rules of Court)
Burden of evidence, on the other hand is the logical necessity which rest upon a
party at any particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor
or to overthrow one created against him.
The distinction between burden of proof and burden of evidence are as follows:
2. In CIVIL CASES, the burden of proof lies in the party who substantially
asserts the affirmative allegations;
3. In ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS, the burden of proof lies on the party who
would be defeated if no evidence were given on either side.
G. Define:
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is that degree of proof which after an investigation
of the whole record produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind of the
culpability of a person. (People vs Beltran, L-31860, November 29, 1974; 61 SCRA
255)
b. preponderance of evidence
c. substantial evidence
H. Give two instances when the quantum of proof required is clear and
convincing evidence.
1. Contempt proceedings
It has been said that the burden of proof in a civil contempt proceeding lies
somewhere between the criminal "reasonable doubt" burden and the
civil "fair preponderance" burden. (Oca vs. Custodio, G.R. No. 199825,
July 26, 2017)
A difference between criminal and civil contempt also lies in the determination of the
burden of proof. In criminal contempt proceedings, the contemnor is “presumed
innocent and the burden is on the prosecution to prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt.”
xxx
However, this Court has clarified that intent is a necessary element only in criminal
contempt cases.
Because the purpose of civil contempt proceeding is remedial and not punitive,
intent is immaterial.
Hence, good faith or lack of intent to violate the court’s order is not a defense in civil
contempt.
Here, respondents were charged with indirect contempt on two (2) grounds under
the Rules of Court:
Page 37 of 112
The Court has repeatedly stressed that in administrative complaints for disbarment
and suspension against lawyers, the required quantum of proof is clear and
preponderant evidence.
The onus probandi lies on the complainant, who is duty-bound to prove the veracity
of the allegations in his complaint by a preponderance of evidence. (Anacin
v.Salonga, A.C N. 876, January 8, 2020)
A civil action may be decided not on the basis of preponderance of evidence when
the case is a prima facie case.
Prima facie case is that amount of evidence which would be sufficient to counter-
balance the general presumption of innocence, and warrant a conviction, if not
countered and controlled by evidence tending to contradict it, and render it
improbable, or to prove other facts inconsistent with it, and the establishment of a
prima facie case does not take away the presumption of innocence which may in
the opinion of the jury be such as to rebut and control it.
Should it happen that at the trial, the weight of evidence is equally balanced or at
equilibrium and presumptions operate against plaintiff who has the burden of proof,
he cannot prevail.
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the
law of these rules. (Rule 128 Sec. 3)
Further, Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that "the court shall
consider no evidence which has not been formally offered."
Offer of evidence means that the offering party shall inform the court of the purpose
of introducing its exhibits into evidence, to assist the court in ruling on their
admissibility in case the adverse party objects. Without a formal offer of evidence,
courts cannot take notice of this evidence even if this has been previously marked
and identified. (Star Two (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Ko, G.R. No. 185454, March 23, 2011,
646 SCRA 371, 375-376)
Example: In a case for collection of sum of money, “Exhibit A”, the document
evidence is a contract of lease, and its purpose would be to prove that the
respondent and the plaintiff entered into a contract of lease for a period of one
year with a monthly rental of P10,000.
C. When may a court consider evidence which was not formally offered?
The cases of People v. Napat-a, People v. Mate, and The Heirs of Romana Saves,
et al. v. The Heirs of Escolastico Saves, et al., to cite a few, enumerated the
requirements so that evidence, not previously offered, can be admitted, namely:
1. The evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded;
and
2. The evidence must have been incorporated in the records of the case.
Applying the rule wherein the court may consider evidence which was not formally
offered can be admitted but first the evidence must have been duly identified by
testimony duly recorded and, second, the evidence must have been incorporated in
the records of the case, the subject pieces of evidence were presented in support
of respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the denial of their motion to dismiss.
A hearing was set for the reception of their evidence, but petitioner failed to attend
the same. The pieces of evidence were thus identified, marked in evidence, and
Page 40 of 112
incorporated in the records of the case. Clearly, the trial court correctly admitted and
considered the evidence of respondents warranting the dismissal of their case. (Star
Two v. Howard Ko; G.R. No. 185454, March 23, 2011)
Furthermore, the rule has no application where the court takes judicial notice of
adjudicative facts pursuant to Section 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court; or where
the court relies on judicial admissions or draws inferences from such judicial
admissions within the context of Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court; or where
the trial court, in judging the demeanor of witnesses, determines their credibility
even without the offer of the demeanor as evidence. (Emeritu Barut v. People of the
Philippines; G.R. No. 167454, September 24, 2014)
The Rules of Court provides that ‘the court shall consider no evidence which has
not been formally offered.’ A formal offer is necessary because:
1. Judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only
and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial;
2. Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for
which the proponent is presenting the evidence;
3. It allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its
admissibility; and
4. It facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review
documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court. (Heirs of Pedro Pasag
v. Parocha; G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 410)
The rule on formal offer of evidence is intertwined with the constitutional guarantee
of due process. Parties must be given the opportunity to review the evidence
submitted against them and take the necessary actions to secure their case. Hence,
any document or object that was marked for identification is not evidence unless it
was "formally offered and the opposing counsel was given an opportunity to object
to it or cross-examine the witness called upon to prove or identify it."
The Rules of Court provides that "the court shall consider no evidence which has
not been formally offered." A formal offer is necessary because judges are
mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the
evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial judge to
know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence.
On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object
to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be
required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court. (Republic
of the Philippines v. Fe Roa Gimenez and Ignacio Gimenez; G.R. No. 174673,
January 11, 2016)
Without a formal offer of evidence, and hence without a disclosure of its purpose, it
cannot be determined whether it is admissible or not. This is so because it is the
intended purpose of a piece of evidence which determines what rule of
evidence will apply for its admissibility. (Evidence: Basic Principles and Selected
Problems, Justice Benipayo, p. 98)
Page 41 of 112
No. Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be considered for any other
purpose. (People v. Diano; 66 O.G. 6405) The purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified otherwise the adverse party cannot interpose the proper
objection.
Presumed – the burden of evidence to show that the evidence is not authentic
belongs to the adverse party.
Jimenez case
If the document is an affidavit, the only public document is the part notarized
by the lawyer. But as to the contents, the affiant must still be presented for
the purpose of authenticating it.
Page 42 of 112
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed
to be.
writing purporting to be his or hers 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. (22)
APOSTILLE CONVENTION-
FEATURES
a. public prosecutor,
b. a clerk of a court or a process-server;
c. administrative documents;
d. notarial acts; and
e. official certificates which are placed on documents signed by persons
in their private capacity, such as
a. official certificates recording the registration of a document or
b. the fact that it was in existence on a certain date, and
c. notarial authentications of signatures.
NOTE: It does not necessarily mean that he saw Juan write as long as he
recognizes the handwriting.
E.g.,
Requisites:
He or she may show that the alteration was made by another, without his or
her concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it,
or was otherwise properly or innocently made, or that the alteration did not
change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he or she fails to do
that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence. (31a)
For foreign languages- the translator should be agreed upon by the parties.
The sponsor in evidence is the person who authenticates the evidence being
presented in court.
I. What is an objection?
2. documentary evidence
In case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party
making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is
being offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the
documentary evidence may be made. (Sps. Tapayan v. Martinez, G.R. No. 207786,
January 30, 2017)
3. object evidence
When a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were
offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived. (Sps.
Tapayan v. Martinez; G.R. No. 207786, January 30, 2017)
The rule is that evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly
considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.
In People v. Romil Marcos (212 SCRA 748, August 21, 1992), the Supreme Court
ruled that if a witness has not given a testimony when called to testify, however the
testimony was included in the unoffered evidence without objection from the adverse
party, the latter is estopped from raising that objection when he is deemed to
have waived; hence, although not formally offered, the evidence may be considered
by the court.
1. Scope
2. nature
1. irrelevant; immaterial
2. best evidence rule
3. parol evidence rule
4. disqualification of witness
5. privileged communication
6. res inter alios acta
7. hearsay
8. opinion
9. evidence illegally obtained
10. private document not authenticated (Benipayo, p. 104)
1. To allow the court to know the nature of the testimony or the documentary
evidence and convince the trial judge to permit the evidence or
testimony.
2. To create and preserve a record for appeal. (Riano, Evidence: A
Restatement for the Bar, p. 477, 2009 ed.)
Object evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court or is exhibited
to, examined or viewed by the court. (Sec 1, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
It covers any material that may be seen, heard, smelled, felt, or touched.
It is not limited to the view of an object. It extends to the visual, auditory, tactile,
gustatory, and olfactory.
DISCUSSIONS:
Demonstrative Evidence
E.g., anatomically correct judge - used to show how the real thing is supposed
to be. (Minor raped - doll is used to demonstrate how the act was done against
the child)
Experiments
● Report- documentary
● Sample- object
Is demonstrative evidence necessarily a documentary evidence? No. If the
evidence is appreciated for its contents.
E.g., you let the accused bake. (CASE: TRADE SECRET RECIPE) Showing the
process.
■ Testimonial evidence
In appreciating documentary evidence, what does the court use? Content-
still use sense of sight, but involve intellectual process
Sense of sight:
Object evidence is real evidence because it can be addressed to the senses of the
court, it is not limited to view an object but extends to what is perceived by the
senses of hearing, taste, smell or touch. (Regalado, p. 717)
Further, it is also called real evidence because it is the most credible kind of
evidence. (Moran, Comments on Rules of Court)
Autoptic evidence is defined as physical evidence that can be seen and inspected.
(Retrieved, uslegal.com) Object evidence is also known as autoptic evidence
because of the characteristic of object evidence that it can be viewed or seen by the
court.
Auto - hearing
Optic - sight
Autoptic preference are sometimes called real evidence. This evidence is furnished
by thing or physical object on view or inspection as distinguished from description
by witness.
H. What are the categories of object evidence? How may evidence falling
under each category be authenticated?
DISCUSSIONS:
3. NON-UNIQUE OBJECTS
Chain-of-Custody (movement of the object from one person to another) in the event
the object passed into the possession of different persons. This means proving the
chronological sequence through which the object was handled only by persons who,
by reason of their function or office, can reasonably be expected to have the right
or duty to possess or handle the object.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. [Mallillin v. People, 576
Phil. 576, 586-587 (2008)]
J. What are the links in the chain of custody of drugs. People of the
Philippines vs. Lorenz Esguerra, G.R. 243986 January 22, 2020; People
vs. Teng Moner, G.R. No. 202206 dated March 5, 2018
People of the Philippines vs. Lorenz Esguerra, G.R. 243986 January 22, 2020
To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral certainty, the
prosecution must be able to ACCOUNT FOR EACH LINK OF THE CHAIN
Page 53 of 112
OF CUSTODY from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation
in court as evidence of the crime.
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the
marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be
conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. The law
further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the
presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or
his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely:
People vs. Teng Moner, G.R. No. 202206 dated March 5, 2018
Saraum v. People:
The chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who
handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the
authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia
from the time they were seized from the accused until the time they are
presented in court.x x x. (Citation omitted.)
Mallillin v. People:
It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that
every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it
Page 54 of 112
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness'
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which
it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in
the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to
have possession of the same. (Citations omitted.)
DISCUSSIONS:
General Rule: Marking of evidence at the seizure (marked at the place where
the item was seized). Then turned over by the apprehending officer to
investigating officer
NOTE:
1. If seized through search warrant first submitted to the court w/c issued
search warrant.
2. Agent who seized should now release a motion for release of drugs for its
submission to the chemist
DISCUSSION:
Object or real evidence may be refused admittance by the court on the following
grounds:
Paternity — Science has demonstrated that by the analysis of blood samples of the
mother, the child, and the alleged father, it can be established conclusively that the
man is not the father of the child. But group blood testing cannot show that a man
is the father of a particular child, but at least can show only a possibility that he is.
(Jao v. Court of Appeals, No. L-49162, 28 July 1987, 152 SCRA 359)
DISCUSSION:
“DNA evidence” constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other
genetic information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples.
(Sec. 3, A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC)
1. What is DNA?
DNA, which stands for Deoxyribonucleic Acid, is the chain of molecules found in
every nucleated cell of the body. The totality of an individual's DNA is unique for the
individual, except for identical twins. (Section 3, DNA Evidence Rule, A.M. No. 06-
11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)
d) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be
conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of the Probability of
Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be
considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability of
Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of
paternity.
In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall
consider the following:
1. The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected,
how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples;
4. The reliability of the testing result. [Sec. 7, A.M. No. 06- 11-5-SC]
1. The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the theory
or technique can be and has been tested;
2. The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods;
3. The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific
community;
4. The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the
correctness of data generated;
5. The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and
6. The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations
used in comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of
statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles. (Sec. 8, A.M. No. 06-
11-5-SC)
Page 57 of 112
DNA Evidence as an object evidence follows the requisites for the admissibility of
object evidence. Thus, the requisites for admissibility:
The testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment
of conviction. (Sec. 6, Sec. 8, A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC)
VII. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
The following are the classifications of documentary evidence in A.M No. 19-08-15-
SC:
a. Writings
b. Recordings
c. Photographs
d. Any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols, or their
equivalent
e. Other modes of written expression
If the evidence is to be presented to prove its contents and the evidence contains
letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of
written expressions. (Sec. 2, Rule 130)
By looking into the contents of the documents and the relevancy of the contents to
the subject matter of the proceeding.
5. What is a document?
A Document is the record of the conditions agreed upon by the parties involved in a
transaction in a proper format. Ex: photographs
Instrument is a document by which a right or liability is created, transferred,
extended, limited, extinguished or recorded. Ex: deed of sale, wills, lease contract.
Page 59 of 112
The best evidence rule requires that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except
in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.
(Sps. Tapayan v. Martinez, G.R. No. 207786 January 30, 2017)
It states that when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. (Section 3, Rule
130, Rule on Evidence)
Best evidence rule is now properly called the “Original Document Rule”.
DISCUSSIONS:
Original Document Rule means that when the subject of the inquiry is the contents
of the document, you will have to present the original document.
And you will not be allowed to present any other evidence other than the original
document.
9. What are the requisites for the application of the Original Document
Rule?
DISCUSSIONS:
Page 60 of 112
NO. They are not the same. Same only as to the extent of
admissibility.
It is two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents.
DISCUSSION:
Intention-
Is photocopy a duplicate? – you are going to prove why you cannot present
the original document.
Duplicate being questioned for not being the duplicate: then it would have the
same admissibility as the original but then it should be established that that
photocopy is a duplicate.
If the duplicate was NOT made in any manner stated in sec 4 paragraph B-
not a duplicate- don’t apply par C.
**Prove how duplicate was made under par B — before you apply par C.
PHOTOGRAPHS
If you saved the picture in your computer, and print it, the printed material
is an original.
12. What is the rule on the admissibility of the original and a duplicate of a
document? What are the exceptions to this rule?
EXCEPTION:
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, OR the original cannot be obtained by local judicial
processes or procedures;
Remedy: Ask for the production of the document (Rule 27) or by virtue
of subpoena duces tecum. If not possible, present secondary
evidence
Difference between:
Secondary evidence is that which shows that better or primary evidence exists as
to proof of the fact in question. It is the class of evidence that is relevant to the fact
in issue, it is being first shown that the primary evidence of the fact is not obtainable.
It performs the same functions as that of a primary evidence.
E.g.,
1. a copy;
2. recital of its contents in some authentic document;
3. recollection of the witnesses. (Sec 5, Revised Rules on Evidence, as
amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15 SC)
DISCUSSIONS:
1. Copy
Only contents are copied. — E.g.: annotation of deed of absolute sale in the
title.
3. Testimony of witness.
14. What are the requisites for the introduction of secondary documentary
evidence?
The requisites in order that secondary evidence may be presented are as follows:
a. The offer or must prove the due execution and existence of the original
document.
b. The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability
c. The offeror must show that the unavailability was not due to his bad faith.
16. May a party who requested for the production of a document under Rule
27 be obliged to offer the same in evidence?
NO, a party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not
obliged to offer it as evidence. Because no unfavorable inference may be drawn
from such failure.
Oral or verbal evidence, that which is given by word of mouth; the ordinary kind of
evidence, given by witnesses in court. In particular sense, and with reference to
contract, deeds, wills, and other writings, parol evidence is the same as extraneous
evidence or evidence aliunde. (Philippine Legal Encyclopedia, Jose Agaton R.
Sibal, 1986)
19. What are the requisites for the application of the parol evidence rule?
Requisites:
The exceptions to the parol evidence rule is that a PARTY MAY PRESENT
EVIDENCE TO MODIFY, EXPLAIN, OR ADD TO THE TERMS OF THE WRITTEN
AGREEMENT IF HE OR SHE PUTS IN ISSUE IN A VERIFIED PLEADING:
OTHER ANSWER:
It is a kind of ambiguity also known as Latent Ambiguity. On its face, the writing
appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters which make the
meaning uncertain. It is curable by evidence aliunde. It is that where the
document refers to a particular person or thing but there are two or more persons
having the same name or two or more things to which the description in the writing
may apply. (Riguera, p. 518 to 519)
The fact that a word or a phrase or the general sense of a document or part of it,
could equally apply to more than one thing or event. (Philippine Legal Encyclopedia,
Jose Agaton R. Sibal, 1986, p.44)
Page 65 of 112
On its face, the writing appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral
matters which make the meaning uncertain. It is curable by evidence aliundae.
22. Differentiate Parol Evidence Rule from the Original Document Rule.
It is the proof of their due execution and authenticity before they can be received
in evidence. This may require the presentation and examination of witnesses to
testify on this fact. (General Enterprises, Inc. v. Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc., No.
L-18487, August 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 733)
Authenticated by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who
has personal knowledge thereof. (Nuez v. Apao, A.M. NO. CA-05-18-P April 12,
2005)
e. still pictures
f. SMS/MMS messages
Authenticated by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has
personal knowledge thereof. (Nuez v. Apao, A.M. NO. CA-05-18-P April 12, 2005)
Section 2, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE) provides that “[b]efore
any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
26. What is the difference between a CCTV footage and a video recording
taken by a person?
30. What is a private document? (Otero vs. Tan G.R. No. 200134 dated
August 15, 2012)
iii. By the use of “Opinion Evidence” pursuant to the Section 22 of Rule 131
such as:
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.
(Sec. 22, Rule 132)
Pg¥wr
"
Public documents, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has
been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent wee
public official with formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of a
private writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires no further
authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. (People of the
Philippines v. Gimenez)
35. What are the different kinds of public documents? Give one example documentary
testimonial
for each.
(a) The written official acts, or records of the sovereign authority, official euidl
bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
testaments;
Page 69 of 112
(c) Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and
conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the country of
source; and
(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by
law to be entered therein. (Sec. 19, Rule 132)
Examples:
OTHER ANSWER:
Public documents are defined under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence as follows:
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
Example: Judgment.
Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments
Example:
Deed of Sale and documents affecting registered lands which are submitted to the
Register of Deeds, Assessors Office
Examples:
Income tax Returns submitted to the Bureau of internal revenue
36. Differentiate the kinds of public documents as to what they may prove.
(ref: RP vs. Fe Roa Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673 dated January 11, 2016)
Public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer" include those
specified as public documents under Section 19(a), Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
and the acknowledgement, affirmation or oath, or jurat portion of public documents
under Section 19(c).
All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact
which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.
Under Section 23, notarized documents are merely proof of the fact which gave
rise to their execution and of the date of the latter but is not prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated.
Page 70 of 112
OTHER ANSWER:
Public documents as prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated; and Public
documents as not prima facie evidence of the facts not therein stated. [Philippine
Trust Company v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., 650 Phil. 54 (2010)]
a. by contradictory evidence;
b. by prior inconsistent statements or “laying the predicate”
OTHER ANSWER:
a. By objection and without objection, the objection is waived, and the evidence
is admitted (Sec. 36, Rule 132); or
b. By motion to strike (Sec. 39, Rule 132).
Notarial documents are those acknowledged before a notary public. [Sec. 19 (b),
Rule 132]
44. What will you present if you want to prove an official record?
OTHER ANSWER:
OTHER ANSWER:
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. (Sec. 24, Rule 132)
OTHER ANSWER:
a. That the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as
the case may be;
b. it 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.
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:
4. that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the
instrument.
SEC. 2. Cases covered. - These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and
proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.
SEC. 3. Application of the other rules on evidence. - In all matters not specifically
covered by these Rules, the Rules of Court and pertinent provisions of statues
containing rules on evidence shall apply.
Page 73 of 112
No. Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rule on Evidence specifically enumerates that the
same rule is only applicable to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as
quasi- judicial and administrative cases. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Any computer-generated data that is relevant to a case. Included are email, text
documents, spreadsheets, images, database files, deleted email and files and back-
ups. The data may be on floppy disk, zip disk, hard drive, tape, CD or DVD.
i. whether the transformation was created using the private key that
corresponds to the signer’s public key; and
ii. whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the
transformation was made.
1. What is a testimony?
Testimonial knowledge refers to those facts which a witness can testify of which he
or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his
or her own perception. (Section 22, Rule 130, Amended Rules on Evidence)
4. Who is a witness?
Refers to a person who testifies in court and gives evidence before a judicial tribunal.
A "child witness" is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age
of eighteen (18) years. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over eighteen (18)
years but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of himself or protect
himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition. (Sec. 4(a), A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)
a. Who is a facilitator?
Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall conduct
a competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it
finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to
tell the truth in court. (Sec. 6, A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)
calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.
(Sec. 8, A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)
Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and desires to be a
witness for the State. (Sec. 10, RA 6981)
Under Sec. 17, Rule 119 state witness can only be considered as such upon
direction of the court while in RA 6981 there is no requirement for the court to direct
an accused to be a state witness so long as the witness desires to be a state
witness.
All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to
others, may be witnesses. (Sec. 21, Rule 130)
A competent witness is one who meets the basic qualifications of a witness and is
not otherwise disqualified by law.
A credible witness is one who meets the weight, trustworthiness, and reliability of
the testimony.
As a rule, a witness has an obligation to answer questions, although his answer may
tend to establish a claim against him. (Rule 132 Sec. 3)
C. Examination of Witnesses
This method allows the court the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness
and allows the adverse party to cross-examine the witness.
Oral or written.
3. What are the exceptions to the rule that testimonies must be given
orally?
Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different
mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (Sec. 1, Rule 132)
A witness must be sworn because it is necessary for the witness to recognize the
duty to tell the truth. The oath of a witness signifies that he is swearing to the Creator
“to tell the truth and nothing but the truth” and that if he does not, he will later on
answer for all the lies he is guilty of. (Riano)
a. To testify
b. to answer questions
c. to answer truthfully
In a direct examination, the witness’ counsel shall examine the witness. In a cross-
examination, the opposing party’s counsel examines the witness.
A preliminary examination conducted by the trial judge where the witness is duly
sworn to answer as to his competency.
Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall conduct
a competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it
finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to
tell the truth in court. (Sec. 6, A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)
a. Direct examination
b. Cross-examination
To impeach the credibility of the testimony; to impeach the credibility of the witness;
to elicit admissions; and to clarify certain matters
c. Re-direct examination
d. Re-cross examination
12. What are the rules on the application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule in:
a. civil cases
Rules apply irrespective of the penalty involved. (Sec. 9, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
b. criminal cases
Rules applies to criminal cases where the “maximum of the imposable penalty does
not exceed 6 years”. (Sec. 9, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with caution. (Sec. 16,
Rule 132, ROC)
(a) Brief Memoranda - Summary that the party would make at the last minute;
lays down the principles and authorities.
Section 14 - present a previous statement that the witness has stated in the
witness stand.
How?
If the witness cannot explain-then that it the time that the witness is
impeached.
Why don’t we have a separate rule on the evidence of the good character of
the witness?
To prove the competence of the witness. But the competence to testify of the
witness is presumed.
CHILD WITNESS - the party presenting the child as a witness is not required
to prove that despite the minority of the witness, he is able to testify.
The reason why other witnesses may be excluded from the proceedings is to
avoid duplication of testimony. Except in judicial affidavits.
2 kinds of memoranda
18. What is the difference between “laying the predicate” and “laying the
foundation”?
A witness has to be examined in one day only, shall be strictly adhered to subject
to the court’s discretion during the trial whether or not to extend the direct and/or
cross-examination for justifiable reasons. (OCA Circular No. 05-2012)
20. When may the testimony of a witness be expunged from the record?
Upon the request of the counsel in the court to expunge the testimony of the witness
on the record.
- MISSING
The testimonial privilege gives witnesses the right to refuse to testify thus he cannot
be compelled to testify but is not prohibited to testify while testimonial disqualification
bars or prohibits the witness to testify due to either absolute or relative
disqualification.
Disqualification of Witnesses:
The proposed witness is prohibited to testify only on certain matters specified under
Secs. 23 and 24, Rule 130 due to interest or relationship, or to privileges of other
parties.
The following:
Based on the common-law doctrine that husband and wife are but one person, and
consequently, that their interests are identical, and partly upon the ground that public
policy demands that those living in the marriage relation should not be compelled or
allowed to betray the mutual trust and confidence which such relation applies.
OTHER ANSWER:
The rule is intended to preserve the marriage relation as one of full confidence and
affection.
A marriage relation is regarded as more important to the public welfare than the
exigencies of lawsuits.
During a valid marriage. If the marriage is legally dissolved, the spousal immunity
no longer applies.
Privileged communications are those whose disclosure upon the witness stand is
not compellable, or even allowable, owing to certain confidential relations existing
between the parties. The grounds of the exclusion are public policy and necessity.
(Peralta, 2020)
The communication shall remain privileged, even in the hands of a third person who
may have obtained the information, provided that the original parties to the
communication took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality. (Sec. 24,
Rule 130)
4. PRIEST-PENITENT RELATIONSHIP
The following:
1. Crime-fraud clause.
5. Joint clients.
Testimonial Privilege:
NOTE: When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective measure
as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and of the parties and the furtherance
of justice may require. (Sec. 26, Rule 130)
Generally, a trade secret is a process or device intended for continuous use in the
operation of the business, for example, a machine or formula, but can be a price list
or catalogue or specialized customer list. (Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell,
Inc.; G.R. No. 172835, December 13, 2007)
The non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. (Sec. 26, Rule
130)
X. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
1. What is an admission?
OTHER ANSWER:
NOTE: A party would presumably not state anything against his or her interest
unless it were true. (Peralta, 2020)
NOTE:
The most important distinction between judicial and other admission, is that strictly,
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS are conclusive upon the party making them,
while OTHER ADMISSIONS are, as a rule and where the elements of estoppel are
not present, disputable.
Yes, in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission
of guilt.
Not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. (Sec.
28, Rule 130)
Not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. (Sec.
28, Rule 130)
9. May the statements made in the course of a plea bargaining which did
not result to a plea of guilty be admitted in evidence?
Not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. (Sec.
28, Rule 130)
10. What is the effect of an offer to pay medical, hospital, or other effects
occasioned by an injury?
Not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. (27a)
(Sec. 28, Rule 130)
(REASON: to give the party the liberty to give statement that will lead to
settlement)
Any act or declaration made in the presence and within the observation of a party
who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for
action or comment if not true, may be given in evidence against him. (Sec. 33, Rule
130)
17. What does “res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet” mean?
Things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to it.
19. What are the two branches of the res inter alios rule? Get all the terms
for these branches.
20. What are the exceptions to the first branch? Give the requisites for their
admission? (Secs. 30 to 32)
The exceptions to the application of Res Inter Alios Acta Rule are as follows:
Requisites:
Page 90 of 112
2. Admission by a co-conspirator
Requisites:
3. Admission by privies
Requisites:
4. Admission by silence
Requisites:
1. Specific intent; or
2. Knowledge;
3. Identity;
4. Plan;
5. System;
Page 91 of 112
6. Scheme;
7. Habit;
8. Custom;
9. Usage; etc. (Metropolitan bank and Trust Company vs. Custodio, GR No.
173780, March 21, 2011)
1. compels the defendant to meet allegations that are not mentioned in the
complaint;
2. confuses him in his defense;
3. raises a variety of relevant issues; and
4. diverts the attention of the court from the issues immediately before it. (Cruz
v. CA, G.R. No. 126713, July 27, 1998)
Confessions
Page 92 of 112
The following:
1. Judicial confession
2. Extra-Judicial Confession
3. Retracted Confession
4. Confession by co-accused
29. What is the effect of an unaccepted written offer to pay a particular sum
of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal
property?
Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the
competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is
sought to produce it. (Jose Espineli vs. People of the Philippines, GR No. 179535,
June 9, 2014)
A witness may not testify on matters which he or she merely learned from others
either because said witness was told or read or heard those matters.
(Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Rodelio Alberto and Enrico Alberto Reyes, GR No.
194320, February 1, 2012)
Hearsay evidence is excluded by the rules because the party against whom the
evidence is presented is deprived of its right and an opportunity to cross-examine
the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed.
7. What are the out-of-court statements of the declarant that may not be
considered hearsay? (2nd paragraph of Sec. 37)
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is
subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is
Page 94 of 112
a) inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given under oath subject
to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a
deposition;
b) consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express
or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper
influence or motive; or
c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her. (n)
8. Dying Declaration
A dying declaration is considered a hearsay because the party against whom the
declaration is presented is deprived of its right and an opportunity to cross-examine
the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed.
- MISSING
- MISSING
The following are the requisites for the admissibility of declaration against interest:
- MISSING
Act and declaration about pedigree will be an exception to the hearsay evidence
rule when concurred by the following requisites:
1. That the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is the subject of
inquiry by birth, adoption, or marriage, or in the absence thereof, with whose
family he or she was so intimately associated as to be likely to have accurate
information concerning his or her pedigree.
2. That such relationship may be shown by evidence other than the declaration;
3. That declaration was made before death or inability of the declarant to testify;
4. That the declarant is dead or outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines or
unable to testify.
DISCUSSION:
Applying the example; #4 requisite, the grandmother (declarant) is dead before the
controversy before this case. # 1, the issue is filiation of Anna and the paternity of
Pedro. #3, grandmother declared that Anna was the daughter of Pedro before she
died. #2, Grandmother’s will stated that Pedro is one of the heirs.
Why would the fact that evidence proven other than the statement makes the
statement trustworthy?
Budge of Trustworthiness = this is the reason why the court would believe the
statement despite the fact that it’s not the declarant himself who is seating on the
witness stand. But because we have this, siguro totoo ung sinasabi nya. Is it really
the fact that the relationship was proven? Or is it the relationship itself? Because
the statement is really specific, it would pertain to the pedigree of a person. And by
pedigree we mean, it include the relationship, marriage, birth…. (Sec 41, Rule 130).
Relationship =
Family genealogy = an account of the descent of a person, family, or group
from an ancestor or from older forms. Family tree
Birth of a relative
Adoption of a relative=
Marriage of a relative
in the absence thereof, with whose family he or she was so intimately
associated as to be likely to have accurate information concerning his
or her pedigree = example: nanny, driver, paramour, long time maids
Death of a relative
dates when and the places where these facts occurred
names of the relatives
Since they belong to the same family, then most likely, totoo ung sinasabi nya since
he is familiar because of the relationship. It is not just because the relationship was
proven by evidence other than the statement, this is not your badge of
trustworthiness. The badge of trustworthiness is the relationship itself between the
declarant and the person whose pedigree is being established.
Even if the declarant is already dead, if it satisfies all those requisites then it will be
considered as hearsay but it is admissible because there is that badge of
trustworthiness. The declarant is expected to know all of those things about the
person.
The relationship between the declarant and whose pedigree is in issue should either
be by birth, by adoption or by marriage. However, (NEW: “with whose family he or
she was so intimately associated as to be likely…”) even if it’s not a relative by blood
or by reason of adoption or by reason of marriage, Sec 41 applies.
Pedigree includes relationship, family genealogy, birth (of the relative), marriage (of
the relative), death (of the relative), the dates when and the places where these
facts occurred (of the relative), and the names of the relatives. It embraces also the
facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. (Section 41, Rule 130,
Amended Rules on Evidence)
Ex: Anna filed a claim for compulsory recognition under the civil code. Anna claimed
that he is an illegitimate child of Pedro but Pedro denied such claim. In the trial of
the case, there were two witnesses who testified in favor of Anna. These witnesses
are relatives of Pedro, they said that their Grandmother (mother of Pedro) told them
that Anna is indeed an illegitimate daughter of Pedro; that Anna’s mother is the
Page 97 of 112
sweetheart of Pedro and was usually seen together at their house. It was also said
that Pedro introduced Anna’s mother as his gf. In the will of the grandmother, Pedro
was mentioned as one of the heirs. SO the issue here is the filiation of Anna and
the paternity of Pedro.
- MISSING
The requisites for the admissibility of reputation regarding pedigree are that the
tradition were:
DISCUSSION:
Ex: School in La Trinidad which claims to be the owner of the entirety of Trinidad
and filed cases of the occupants of the land. There’s a river that divides the particular
parcel of lands, there are gardens, so the boundary is clear. But still, the school
Page 98 of 112
claims all of the lands beyond the river. The defendants state that the river is the
boundary of the property donated by their forefathers to the school which was
commonly known by people.
The badge of trustworthiness is that you can use common reputation to prove
boundaries affecting lands. Customs affecting lands. reputation as to events of
general history important to the community. or respecting marriage or moral
character.
Ex: the people know that Gabi and Sharon got married.
What is to prove is the marriage of Gabi and Sharon. Because the controversy here
is that Sharon ran away after she can’t pay her debt from the neighbor. So the
neighbor went after Gabi because he and Sharon are married.
The hearsay rule refers to the competency of evidence of the statement, that’s why
we’re going to determine if the common reputation which is being offered to prove
the existence of the marriage is competent, if it is not excluded by the Rules because
under the Rules of Evidence, hearsay is not admissible in evidence, that goes into
the competency of the statement. That is what will make it inadmissible. By
discussing the exceptions, we are looking at the admissibility of evidence only more
particularly at the competency of the evidence.
If what you’re thinking is that why is there a need to present common reputation if
the best evidence to prove marriage is the certificate of marriage. That is not on the
admissibility of evidence. That is delving into the evidentiary weight of the evidence.
If ever you are answering questions as to whether the evidence is admissible or not
then you just stick with the relevancy and competency, do not go to the weight,
because you’ll get confused.
In rape cases, e.g. that girl is known by the community as a loose woman.
They will assail the moral character of the victim, which is prohibited under the rape
shield act. In the amended Rules, it might now seem that you can prove the
character evidence of the victim. You can present the common reputation to prove
the moral character of a person.
Sometimes, in order to set boundaries, they would bury big rocks to set the
boundaries, and in case of land disputes, you can dig out the big rocks.
The concept of stewardship, in some places, if you are the owner of parcel
of land downhill, you will have the right of the hilly portion where you have trees,
which is the presumed source of water in the land. By custom, you are considered
as steward of that parcel of land above your parcel of land. Taban System. So if that
Page 99 of 112
place is known by the community to be the Taban of the lot owned by X then, that
would be admitted as evidence of ownership of that parcel of land uphill.
PVAO filed for Rectification of the history of the world war 2 where it was
written that the end of the reign of the Japanese in the Philippines was due to the
surrender of Gen. Yamashita. However, in truth, Gen. Yamashita was captured by
the operative so the US Armed Forces in the Northern Luzon as part of Cordillera
Guerilla. PVAO presents collective testimonies of still surviving local veterans from
the cordillera who only have stories from memory to tell. Also, people presented that
there was a shrine in Ifugao where the capture of Yamashita was written. So, here
is X who came to sell his house and lot to where Yamashita surrendered that’s why
you bought it. It happened that there was no significance of the house to the
surrender of Yamashita. So, you file a case for estafa or damages. In order for you
to prove that the house is not the place where Yamashita surrendered, then you
present the evidence, common reputation where Yamashita surrendered.
- MISSING
- MISSING
- MISSING
Res= thing
Gestae = done
DISCUSSION: This is clearly a hearsay statement because the person who is giving
the statement is not sitting on the witness stand. The witness who is sitting in the
witness stand is simply repeating the statement. (you should be familiar with the
definition of hearsay)
Page 100 of 112
REQUISITES:
DISCUSSION:
Ex: immediately, after witnessing a robbery, X called the police and reported in
detail all that transpired including the identity of the culprit. During trial, the police
officer testified as to the story told to him by X because the latter could not testify in
court. The testimony of the policeman is admissible as part of res gestae and that X
reported out of instinct.
It is not the declarant who is talking but the startling occurrence. That is why
the declarant could not have contrived or fabricated the statement because in the
first place, it did not come from his mind. It is not the product of his mind but it is the
product of the startling occurrence. It is the product of the excitement caused by the
occurrence. Stress of excitement.
Another, husband and wife were walking along Session Rd. the A, husband’s
girlfriend tripped near them. Husband shouted “ay, babe”. So, wife filed for
concubinage against husband and is in the witness stand testifying against him. Is
the statement hearsay? YES. Is it admissible? The startling event here is the tripping
of A. (The declarant is the husband so it must be startling to him). The statement
was made immediately after the tripping. It was an automatic response “ay babe”
he didn’t think that A is a pretty girl and I would want to call her babe, but instead
directly reacted out of instinct “ay babe”. Does it relate to the startling occurrence?
No. “ay, babe” does not relate to the tripping of the girl. The statement should be
made with respect to the circumstances of the startling occurrence. Meaning, the
startling occurrence must be one of the issues in the case. This “ay babe” was
uttered under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence but because it was
not made with respect to the circumstances of the startling occurrence. Objection
your honor, it is hearsay, thus, sustain the objection (if otherwise, you overrule the
objection). The last requisite does was not met so it’s not part of res gestae so it’s
really hearsay so it is inadmissible.
What is a Circumstance?
Another example, suppose A was walking in the park, and he was suddenly
hit by a person behind him with a rock and that caused his head to crack open. A
died instantly. B, the bystander who happened to witness the incident cried out “X
Page 101 of 112
did it! He hit him with a rock. Since B cannot be found when the police came, L, who
heard B’s statements, used B’s statement to testify. So part of re gestae.
d. What is a verbal act? What are the requisites for its admission?
REQUISITES:
DISCUSSION:
Hearsay but admissible because it is considered a verbal act. It becomes part of the
act which it accompanies. There should be an equivocal act.
Ex: When an officer arrests X by placing his hands on X’s shoulder. Thus, taking
him in custody by saying, “I arrest you in the name of the law”. The act of placing
the hand on the shoulder is by itself equivocal because it might just be a friendly
gesture but the words that accompany the act are what gives it legal significance. A
witness testifies stating that he saw the police putting his hand on X’s shoulder and
heard the police saying “I arrest you in the name of the law”.
Ex of unequivocal act: You need the statement for the equivocal act to be clear
that’s why the statement becomes part of the act and that what makes it admissible.
- MISSING
DISCUSSION:
Why do we consider this as hearsay? Because the witness will be testifying the case
on a memorandum, report or record or compilation (witness wasn’t the one who
Page 102 of 112
made them on data of events, conditions, which he does not have personal
knowledge of but he will be testifying based on them.
1. The invisible witness who has personal knowledge and who has
made/compile the record by writing… and other similar means of recording.
This is hearsay because he was not the one on the witness stand.
2. The custodian of that record. He will be testifying as to the procedure/ flow
including the content.
Ex: In the case of illegal recruitment wherein the recruitment agency was charged
for illegal recruitment for charging higher agency fee that was allowed by the law. X,
the victim, was given the receipt for payment of agency fee. But X here lost his
receipt. To prove that the agency fee was charging higher fee. X, saw that another
receipt was given to another applicant and the agency recorded the transaction in a
book. The custodial of the book may testify on the entries even if he is not the one
who made the entries on the book to prove that the agency charged high agency
fee.
The fact that the records were made in the regular course of business and was a
regular practice so there is a presumption that the entries are true.
RATIONALE: In order for the company to keep track of their business activities.
This is very useful because in most businesses, hindi nagtatagal ang mga tao.
Ex: Pedro will make a cost estimate for a car, and he will give it to the management.
But Pedro was removed so the next that will testify will be the custodian who holds
the record?
Will you consider this as a record of a regularly conducted business activity? YES.
REQUISITES:
DISCUSSION:
OFFICIAL RECORD = record wherein the entries were made by a public officer in
the Philippines in the performance of his duty; the same as a public document
The entries in the official record are considered prima facie evidence of the facts
stated therein. = there is a presumption that the data recorded therein is presumed
true and accurate.
When it comes to document, you only need to present a sponsor for purposes of
authentication. But if it is already an official record
That the record/ document is made with the sense of official duty and it is also made
in correct entries because of fear of being penalized if inputting the wrong entries.
Section 47. 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. (45)
REQUISITE:
DISCUSSION:
Ex: A jargon that was defined by Justice Reyes in his book, and present the Book
of Paras to clarify the bounds of the term
When we talk about the guarantee/ badge of trustworthiness, these are the facts
established before you can present your hearsay evidence.
Like in Sec. 48, you’re going to present a witness, not to testify what is written
in the published treaties but to testify as to the expertise of the writer or the
author of the statement or the court may just motu proprio take judicial notice.
The guarantee/badge of trustworthiness is NOT that fact that the witness or the
person was cross-examined. It is the opportunity/ availability of the opportunity
to cross-examine the witness. So, it doesn’t mean to say that the witness was
cross-examined, automatically the testimony or the position will not be admissible
under Sec. 49. What you should look into is the opportunity. If that opportunity was
not taken, then it doesn’t mean to say that it will not fall under Sec. 49.
We should remember the 2nd paragraph of Sec 37, because there can be a similarity
between this one. I can ask the question on that.
This is hearsay because the witness is not given by the witness on the witness stand
although he was also the declarant. In this particular section, same declarant, same
person on the witness stand.
HEARSAY = any statement not given by the declarant while sitting on the witness
stand
The statement here can be found by the disposition of the witness who is either
dead or unable to testify because he is outside the Philippines or because he can
no longer talk or cannot be found.
Ex: Pedro’s testimony in another case which was used in the current state. For as
long as the adverse party had the opportunity to cross-examine him/her.
Exceptions to the hearsay rule: Sections 38 to 49. For as long as the examining
party can lay the predicate for the presentation of hearsay statement, it’s mandatory
for the court to admit the statement in evidence, as long as the requisites were
complied with.
DISCUSSION:
SECTION 50: Discretionary in the part of the court even if you can prove all the
requisites that is needed.
REQUISITES:
= you are notifying the adverse party in advance that you intend to present
hearsay statement which is otherwise not admissible under the exceptions.
You are giving that adverse party the opportunity to object to the presentation
of evidence.
1. Dying declaration-
Statement is being offered not in the case involve in the death of the
declarant.
NOTE: If ever there is a missing requisite, if you will be asked, is the evidence or
statement admissible in evidence as a declaration against interest, but if there is a
facts in the question pertaining to the residual exception then yun ang tignan mo.
NOTE: In order for the evidence to fall under section 50, it should also be proved
that it does not fall under the other exceptions.
In illegal possession of firearms- the gun is the corpus delicti-without the gun there
is no crime, hearsay evidence is not admissible.
In evidence it is not enough that the witness is credible, the testimony must be
credible.
- MISSING
XII. OPINION RULE AND CHARACTER EVIDENCE
A. Opinion Rule
1. What is an opinion?
Because the witness must testify to facts within his knowledge and may not state
his opinion even on his examination.
The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in
evidence regarding —
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition
or appearance of a person.
B. Character Evidence
DISCUSSION:
Generally, character evidence is not admissible if you are offering it as proof of the
commission of an action which is in conformity with that particular character on a
particular occasion. Propensity rule.
Ex: character evidence not admissible: in a case of murder, X was accused in killing
A. if you are going to present character evidence on X being violent to prove that it
was X to prove that it was X who killed A.
If what you’re going to prove is the commission of the crime itself then that character
would not be admissible. Except in cases in which character or a trait of
character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim or defense,
proof may also be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct, then
it may be admissible. (presentation of evidence in chief)
1. What is character?
- MISSING
The reason is that the evidence of a person’s character does not prove that such
person acted in conformity with such character or trait in a particular occasion. (Sec.
54, Rule 130)
In criminal Cases:
DISCUSSION:
When is it essential?
Page 110 of 112
2. The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
DISCUSSION:
In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when
pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
DISCUSSION:
Ex: on the part of the plaintiff: In a complaint for damages arising from
breach of promise of marriage. Ms. X may justify the breach of promise
by presenting evidence that he discovered Mr. Z is infidel. Hence, he
refused to marry her.
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character
has been impeached. (Sec. 54, Rule 130, ROC)
DISCUSSION:
Ex: when it comes to a witness, you are not required to prove his good
character as a witness. But you will be allowed to present evidence on
his good character. Specially in connection with his truthfulness of his
character, if his character has been impeached/ if his credibility has
been destroyed. When it comes to impeachment of witness, you go to
Rule 132 Section 11. Either you present contradictory evidence; or
you can also present evidence that his or her reputation, truth, honesty
or integrity is bad. This is character evidence.
Page 111 of 112
Expert witness
6. What are rape shield laws? What is a sexual abuse shield? Are these in
conflict with Sec. 54 (a)(1) of Rule 130?
OTHER ANSWER:
Rape shield laws are statutes which limit the ability of the defendant’s
counsel to introduce the accuser’s sexual history as evidence during a rape
trial and therefore can prevent the accuser from being discredited by
information that is not relevant to the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
a. In a child abuse case, any evidence tending to prove that the offended party
has engaged in other sexual behavior is not admissible.
b. Evidence tending to prove the other sexual predisposition of the offended
party is not admissible. (Sec. 30, Rule on Examination of Child Witness)
OTHER ANSWER:
Page 112 of 112
1. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual
behavior; and
2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
Exception:
- MISSING