1 Session. Araneta-Evidence - Custodio - AY 2015 - 2016 - Term 2 1

Evidence Proof (the Effect of providing Evidence
evidence)
Rule 128 Section 1. Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of The result of the probative effect of See definition
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of a fact. evidence and is the conviction of
persuasion of the mind resulting fro
Other definitions a consideration of the matter
 Anything that may legally be submitted to a court to prove an assertion When the requisite quantum of
about a matter of fact. evidence of a particular fact has
 Any knowable fact or group of facts, not a legal or logical principle been duly admitted ad given weight,
considered with a view to its being offered before the tribunal for the the result is the proof of that fact
purposes of producing persuasion, positive or negative, on the part of the
tribunal as to the truth of a proposition, not of law of logic, on which the
determination of the tribunal is to be asked. Section 2. The rules in evidence shall be the same in all courts and on all trials and
hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these Rules.
 Not all facts connected with the truth or falsity of a fact is considered as
evidence. To be considered as such it must be sanctioned by the rules of
Principle of uniformity
court or by law.
 GR: the same for the trial of civil and of criminal cases not only principle,
but also in spirit—that is the relation between the Evidentialry fact and the
 Purpose: to ascertain the truth repsecting a mater of fact in a judicial
Proposition is always the same without regard to any kind of litigation.
proceeding
 Not however that Section 4 of Rule 1 provides for the non-applicability
o the truth is to be determined by the rules of admissibility and and of the Rules of Court, including the rules on evidence to specified
proceedings such as:
proof
o Election cases, land registration proccedings, cadastral,
o court is not aware of the veracity of the facts involved in the case
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases , except
hence, incumbent upon the parties to prove a fact in issue through
in analogy or in a suppletory character
presentation of evidence
o Administrative agencies are not also bound by the technical rules
o to ascertain the judicial or legal truth: the limitation of human
of evidence, it can choose to give weight or disregard evidence,
judicial systems cannot always guarantee knowledge of the actual
depending on the trustworthiness
or real truth; legal truth is what is proven by the evidence
admitted to the court
Difference between Factum Probandum and Factum Probans
Sources  Evidence is always a relative term and it signifies a relation between two
1. Constitution facts, the factum probandum and the factum probans
2. General Laws Factum probandum Factum probans
Proposition to be established Materials evidencing the proposition
3. Special Laws
Necessarily hypothetical; it is that which brought forward as a reality to convince
4.
one party affirms or denies the tribunal that the fact being asserted is
real
What is the difference between proof and evidence?
1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 1

 Note however that an evidentiary fact may in turn be an evidentiary Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation
proposition until some final ultimate evidentiary fact is reached. to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence
 In practical terms: on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any
reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in
issue.
Civil Cases Criminal Cases
The factum probandum refers to the Factum probandum includes all matters
elements of the cause of action from the that the prosecution must prove beyond Test of Relevance:
point of view of the plaintiff and the reasonable doubt in order to justify a  Must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
elements of the defense in the standpoint conviction when the accused pleads not existence or non-existence
of the defendant guilty  It is clearly one of logic and reasoning because it deals with the rational
relationship between the evidence and the fact to be proven
 Irrelevant facts and circumstances are those which do not throw any light
 Rules on evidence must also be liberally construed similar to all other upon or have any logical relation to , the fact in issue which must be
provision of the Rules of Court because they are mere rules to facilitate established by one party or disproved by the other which are remote and
justice and to prevent the frustration of the same because of strict adherence collateral
to the court  Evidence adduced should be directed to the matters in dispute and any
 There is no vested right in the rules of evidence such that it may subject evidence which has neither direct nor indirect relationship to such matters
to changes by the court pursuant to its power to promulgate rules of shall be considered as irrelevant
procedure  Immediate fact presented must have a connection with the ultimate issue
o However, it must be subject to the constitutional limitation of o Example: a car caused an accident
ex post facto laws which includes the alteration of the rules of  The car was alleged to be running beyond the speed limit
evidence that receives less or different testimony than that required  The driving beyond the speed limit is
at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict an
accused Collateral matters
 Rules of evidence may be waived.  Matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a basis merely
for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue
 Parallel or diverging line, merely additional or auxiliary; absence of direct
Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is connection between the evidence and the matter in dispute
relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules. o E.g., motive; bad reputation of the accused; resemblance of the
child to prove paternity; flight of the accused
Two Elements/ requisites of Admissibility of evidence:  General Rule: not allowed because it has no direct relevance with the issue
1. Substantial requirement: It is relevant and material to the issue of fact of the case
raised in the pleadings; has rational and probative value o Exceptions: there may be cases when they may be allowed if it
2. Procedural requirement: it is competent meaning to say, that it is not
tends in any reasonable degree to establish or induce belief of
excluded by rules of evidence
the probability or improbability of the fact in issue
Competent Evidence
1 Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2
st
2
 One that is not excluded by the rules  under the present rules, there are facts which the courts must now take
 If relevance is determined by logic, competence is determined by law judicial notice and of which they may take judicial notice
 Note however that in usage, there is no incompetent evidence but only  purpose: convenience and expediency
inadmissible evidence. Incompetence refers to the person who could not be  requisites:
a witness a. must be a matter of common knowledge
b. it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubted or
Doctrines: uncertain
c. it must be known within the limited jurisdiction of the courts
1. Multiple admissibility
 Evidence proffered is admissible for two or more purposes
 Evidence may also be admissible for one party and inadmissible for
another (e.g., extrajudicial admission of one of the two accused only What Need Not Be Proved
binds him, not the other one—res inter alios acta rule)
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial
2. Conditional Admissibility notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial
 The proponent of the evidence may ask the court that the evidence be extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of
conditionally admitted in the meantime subject to the condition that he nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world
is going to establish its relevancy and competency at a later and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the
o When relevance of a piece of evidence is not apparent at the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines,
time it is offered, but the relevance of which will readily be the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
seen when connected to the other pieces of evidence not yet
offered Mandatory Judicial Notice
 no motion or hearing necessary for the court to take judicial notice of the
3. Curative Admissibility fact
 Doctrine allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to  however, the court may receive evidence upon any of the following
answer the opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible subjects, when it shall find it necessary for its own information, and may
evidence if it would remove any unfair prejudice caused by the resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents for reference:
admission of the earlier introduced inadmissible evidence a. existence and territorial extent of states
b. their political history
c. forms of government and symbols of nationality
d. the law of nations (general principles of international law under the
constition)
RULE 129 SECTIONS 1 & 2 – JUDICIAL NOTICE e. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals
f. the political constitution and history of the Philippines
Judicial Notice; in general g. the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments
 it is the cognizance of certain facts by the courts without proof because of the Philippines
they are facts, which by common experience, are of universal 
knowledge or that which the courts already have knowledge h. the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
divisions

Judicial notice is different knowledge of the judge
RULES AS TO ORDINANCES  Judicial notice may be taken of a fact which judges ought to know because
a. municipal trial courts are reuired to take judicial notice of the ordinances of of their functions
the municipality or city in which they sit.  Note however that the personal knowledge of the judge is not the
b. RTCs, they must take such judicial notice only when: judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his
a. Required to do so by statute individual knowledge of the fact, not generally or professionally known,
b. In case on appeal before them and wherein the inferioir court took as the basis of his action.
judicial notice of an ordinance involved in said case
c. Appellate courts may also take judicial notice of municipal or city ordinance
not where the lower courts took judicial notice thereof but because these are
facts capable of unquestionable demonstration. Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the trial,
the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its
RULES AS TO FOREIGN LAWS intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
 Our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other thereon.
facts, they myst be alleged and proved. Otherwise, it will be presumed that
it is the same as the Philippine Law (processual presumption doctrine) After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own
1 initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and
Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material
judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable to issue in the case.
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions.  Judicial notice of a fact may be taken by a court on its own motion or when
it is requested or invited by the parties or either of them to do so. In either
case, the court may allow the parties to be heard on the matter in question
When is judicial notice discretionary? o It must be exercised with caution and reasonable doubt on the
Requisites: subject must be resolved in the negative
a. The matter must be one of common knowledge; of universal notoriety
b. The matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubt because if there is
uncertainty, presentation of evidence would be necessary or that generally When is judicial notice taken?
accepted as true and are capabe of ready and unquestioned demostration 1. It may be taken during the trial of the case
c. The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of the court or capable of 2. It may also be taken after the trial and before the judgment;
accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose accuracy 3. It may also be taken durig appeal
cannot reasonable by questionable
1. State Prosecutors vs. Muro – 236 S 505

Matters which are capable of unquestionable demonstration pertains to fields of
professional and scientific knowledge. As to matters which ought to be known to The present case is an administrative case filed by the State Prosecutors against the
judges because of their judicial functions, e.g., ascertainable from the records of RTC Judge Muro, the respondent of the this case.
court proceeding. (People vs Tundag)
Facts:

1. the State Prosecutors charged Judge Muro fo the RTC of Manila with required by law in order that the enactment can become effective
ignorance of the law, grave misconduct and violation of provisisions of the and binding.
Code of Judicial Conduct alleging that:
a. Judge Muro issued an order dismissing 11 cases filed by the Issue: Should Judge Muro be held administratively liable?
prosecutors against accused Imelda Marcos for violation of
provisions of the Central Bank Foreign Exchange Restrictions in Controlling issue: Was judge Muro wrong in taking judicial notice of the newspaper
Central Bank Circular no. 960. reports and in using the same as basis for the dismissal of the criminal cases against
b. That judge Muro based his orders of dismissal solely on the basis the accused Marcos?
of newspaper reports (Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Daily
Globe) concerning the announcement by the President of the Ruling: Yes. it was wrong for Judge Muro to take judicial notice of the newspaper
Philippines of the lifting of all foreign exchange restrictions reports about the purported lifting of the Foreign Exchange Restrictions in
c. That the said circular which purportedly lifted the restrictions dismissing the criminal cases against the accused.
under which the accused Marcos is being prosecuted has not been
officialy issued yet Ratio: the newspaper reports and its contents announcing the lifting of the
d. That the said Judge Muro gravely erred in taking judicial notice of restrictions did not pass the requisites of judicial notice
the said announcement by the president as a matter of public
knowledge a mere newspaper account that the president lifted the 1. Test of Notoriety: The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and
said restrictions before it si officially released by the Central Bank discretion of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised
and its full text published as required by law to take effect by courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists;
and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in
2. Argument of Judge Muro: there was no need to await publication of the the negative.
Central Bank circular repealing the existing law on foreign exchange 2. Requisites enumerated:
controls for the simple reason that the public announcement made by the a. the matter must be one of common and general knowledge
President in several newspapers of general circulation lifting foreign b. it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
exchange controls was total, absolute, without qualification, and was uncertain;
immediately effective; that having acted only on the basis of such c. it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the
announcement, he cannot be blamed for relying on the erroneous statement court.
of the President that the new foreign exchange rules rendered moot and 3. What are things of common knowledge to be considered as notorious?
academic the cases filed against Mrs. Marcos, and which was corrected only a. Things of "common knowledge," of which courts take judicial
after respondent judge had issued his order of dismissal notice, may be matters coming to the knowledge of men generally
in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be
3. Decision of the CA: the orders of dismissal by Judge Muro were also matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are
assailed by the State Prosecutors and the CA found that the respondent capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration.
Judge Muro acted in excess of jurisdiction with grave abuse of discretion in i. Example: Thus, facts which are universally known, and
issuing the said orders of dismissal because: which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or
other publications
a. Aside from the fact that the order was issued motu proprio without b. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial
giving the prosecutors a chance to be heard, thedecision was solely knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his
based on the newspaper reports which is not the publication individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally

known, the basis of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of
those matters which are "commonly" known. -His wife Lilia immediately asked them where they were going and they
answered that they were bound for the town proper. When Lilia informed
In the present case: the contents of the reports are not considered as common them that they were not going to pass through the town proper, the two (2)
knowledge. A law not yet in force cannot be considered as common knowledge said they would just get off at the nearest intersection.
capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration.
2. After negotiating some 500 meters, one of the hitchhikers pointed a .38 caliber
1. Respondent judge, in the guise of exercising discretion and on the basis of a revolver at Gregorio while the other poked a balisong at Lilia's neck and ordered
mere newspaper account which is sometimes even referred to as hearsay Gregorio to stop the vehicle. Two (2) other persons, one of whom was later identified
evidence twice removed, took judicial notice of the supposed lifting of as accused Armando Reanzares, were seen waiting for them at a distance.
foreign exchange controls, a matter which was not and cannot be considered
of common knowledge or of general notoriety. 3. As soon as the vehicle stopped, the accused and his companion approached the
2. Worse, he took cognizance of an administrative regulation which was not vehicle. Gregorio was then pulled from the driver's seat to the back of the vehicle.
yet in force when the order of dismissal was issued. Jurisprudence dictates They gagged and blindfolded him and tied his hands and feet. They also took his
that judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it becomes effective. Seiko wristwatch worth P2,500.00. The accused then drove the vehicle after being
3. The reason is simple. A law which is not yet in force and hence, still told by one of them, "Sige i-drive mo na."
inexistent, cannot be of common knowledge capable of ready and
unquestionable demonstration, which is one of the requirements before a 4. During the entire trip, his wife kept uttering, "Maawa kayo sa amin, marami
court can take judicial notice of a fact. kaming anak, kunin nyo na lahat ng gusto ninyo." Immediately after the last time she
uttered these words a commotion ensued and Lilia was heard saying, "aray!"
Gregorio heard her but could not do anything. After three (3) minutes the commotion
2. People vs. Reanzares – 334 S 624 ceased. Then he heard someone tell him, "Huwag kang kikilos diyan, ha," and left.
Gregorio then untied his hands and feet, removed his gag and blindfold and jumped
[doctrine] The amount of P2,500.00 as reimbursement for the Seiko wristwatch taken out of the vehicle. The culprits were all gone, including his wife. He ran to San
from Gregorio Tactacan must be deleted in the absence of receipts or any other Roque East shouting for help.
competent evidence aside from the selfserving valuation made by the prosecution.
An ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can only 5. When Gregorio returned to the crime scene, the jeepney was still there. He went to
take judicial notice of the value of goods which is a matter of public knowledge or is the drivers seat. There he saw his wife lying on the floor of the jeepney with blood
capable of unquestionable demonstration. The value of jewelry therefore does not splattered all over her body. Her bag containing P1,200.00 was missing. He brought
fall under either category of which the court can take judicial notice. her immediately to the C. P. Reyes Hospital where she was pronounced dead on
arrival.
6. Subsequently, two (2) Informations were filed against accused Armando

Reanzares and three (3) John Does in relation to the incident.
CASE 2: PEOPLE v. REANZARES (2000) - The first was for violation of PD 532 otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy
FACTS: and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974 for allegedly conspiring, with
1. On 10 May 1994 at around 8:10 in the evening, the Tactacan spouses closed their intent to gain and armed with bladed weapons and a .38 caliber revolver, to
store and left for home in Barangay San Roque, Sto. Tomas, Batangas on board their rob and carry away one (1) Seiko wristwatch owned by Gregorio Tactacan
passenger-type jeepney. As Gregorio was maneuvering his jeep backwards from and P1,000.00 cash of Lilia Tactacan, and on the occasion thereof, killed
where it was parked two (2) unidentified men suddenly climbed on board. her.
Consequently, the accused should be held liable for the special complex crime of
- The second was for violation of RA 6539, An Act Preventing and robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA
Penalizing Carnapping, for taking away by means of violence and 7659 as the allegations in the Information are enough to convict him therefor.
intimidation of persons one (1) passenger-type jeepney with Plate No. DBP
235 owned and driven by Gregorio Tactacan and valued at P110,000.00.
Only the accused Armando Reanzares was arrested. The other three (3) 3. People vs. Tundag – 342 S 704
have remained unidentified and at large.
[doctrine] In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper, despite the
7. The accused testified in his defense and claimed that he could not have perpetrated defense counsels admission, thereof acceding to the prosecutions motion. As
the crimes imputed to him with three (3) others as he was in Barangay Tagnipa, required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as to any other matters such as age, a hearing is
Garchitorena, Camarines Sur, for the baptism of his daughter Jessica when the required before courts can take judicial notice of such fact. Generally, the age of the
incident happened. victim may be proven by the birth or baptismal certificate of the victim, or in the
absence thereof, upon showing that said documents were lost or destroyed, by other
ISSUE: WON the amount of the amount of P2,500.00 as reimbursement for the documentary or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose.
Seiko wristwatch taken from Gregorio Tactacan must be deleted.
FACTS:
HELD: Yes. Mary Ann Tundag filed 2 separate complaints for incestuous rape against her father,
Tomas Tundag. She alleged that she was 13 years old at the time of rapes. However,
RATIO: The amount of P2,500.00 as reimbursement for the Seiko wristwatch taken the prosecution failed to secure the Birth Certificate of the victim. Thus, the Fiscal
from Gregorio Tactacan must be deleted in the absence of receipts or any other requested for judicial notice that the victim was below 18 years old. The defense
competent evidence aside from the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution. counsel admitted the request. After the trial, the trial court rendered its decision
An ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry and the trial court can only finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of rape, and
take judicial notice of the value of goods which is a matter of public knowledge or is sentenced him to death twice. Thus, the accused appealed.
capable of unquestionable demonstration. The value of jewelry therefore does not
fall under either category of which the court can take judicial notice. ISSUE:
WON judicial notice of the age of the victim is proper. (WON the penalty of death
Thus the trial court was correct in disregarding the alibi of the accused not only imposed on the accused is correct.)
because he was positively identified by Gregorio Tactacan but also because it was
not shown that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene on the HELD:
date and time of the incident. NO. Judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper. Failure of the prosecution to
sufficiently establish victim’s age by independent proof is a bar to conviction for
Indeed the accused is guilty. But that the accused was guilty of Highway Robbery rape in its qualified form. Hence, the penalty of death should not have been imposed.
with Homicide under PD 532 was erroneous. As held in a number of cases,
conviction for highway robbery requires proof that several accused were organized The Court found the appellant guilty for the crime of rape but modified the judgment
for the purpose of committing it indiscriminately. There is no proof in the instant sentencing the accused to reclusion perpetua.
case that the accused and his cohorts organized themselves to commit highway
robbery. RATIO:
Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659,
penalizes rape of a minor daughter by her father as qualified rape and a heinous
crime. In proving such felony, the prosecution must allege and prove the elements of
rape: (1) sexual congress; (2) with woman; (3) by force or without her consent and in On the other hand, matters which are capable of unquestionable demonstration
order to warrant the imposition of capital punishment, the additional elements that: pertain to fields of professional and scientific knowledge. For example, in People v.
(4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape and (5) the offender is a Alicante, the trial court took judicial notice of the clinical records of the attending
parent of the victim. physicians concerning the birth of twin baby boys as premature since one of the
In this case, it was sufficiently alleged and proven that the offender was the victims alleged rapes had occurred 6 to 7 months earlier.
father. But the victims age was not properly and sufficiently proved beyond
As to matters which ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions,
reasonable doubt. She testified that she was thirteen years old at the time of the
an example would be facts which are ascertainable from the record of court
rapes. However, she admitted that she did not know exactly when she was born
proceedings, e.g. as to when court notices were received by a party.
because her mother did not tell her. She further said that her birth certificate was
likewise with her mother. In her own words, the victim testified. With respect to other matters not falling within the mandatory or discretionary
judicial notice, the court can take judicial notice of a fact pursuant to the procedure in
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and Section 3 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court which requires that -
act on without proof because they already know them. Under the Rules of Court,
judicial notice may either be mandatory or discretionary. Section 1 of Rule 129 of SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary . - During the trial, the court, on its
the Rules of Court provides when court shall take mandatory judicial notice of facts - own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial
notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.
SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice
without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own
their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the
constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, case.
executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper, despite the defense
of time, and the geographical divisions. counsels admission, thereof acceding to the prosecutions motion. As required by
Section 2 of Rule 129 enumerates the instances when courts may Section 3 of Rule 129, as to any other matters such as age, a hearing is required
take discretionary judicial notice of facts – before courts can take judicial notice of such fact. Generally, the age of the victim
may be proven by the birth or baptismal certificate of the victim, or in the absence
SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. - A court may take thereof, upon showing that said documents were lost or destroyed, by other
judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are documentary or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose.
capable of unquestionable demonstration or ought to be known to
judges because of their judicial functions. Considering the statutory requirement in Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by R.A. No. 7659 and R.A. No. 8353, the Court reiterate here what the
Thus, it can be considered of public knowledge and judicially noticed that the scene Court has held in Javier without any dissent, that the failure to sufficiently establish
of the rape is not always nor necessarily isolated or secluded for lust is no respecter victims age by independent proof is a bar to conviction for rape in its qualified
of time or place. The offense of rape can and has been committed in places where form. For, in the words of Melo, J., independent proof of the actual age of a rape
people congregate, e.g. inside a house where there are occupants, a five (5) meter victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the case falls
room with five (5) people inside, or even in the same room which the victim is under the qualifying circumstances for the imposition of the death penalty set by the
sharing with the accused’s sister. law.
The Court has likewise taken judicial notice of the Filipinas inbred modesty and
shyness and her antipathy in publicly airing acts which blemish her honor and virtue.

b) Are pertinent to the issue involved in the latter
Unless:
RULE 129 SECTION 4 – JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS a) The said admissions were made only for
purposes of the first case (as in the rule in
Section 4. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party on the course of the implied admissions and their effects); or
trial or other proceedings in the same case does not require proof. The b) The same were withdrawn with the permission of
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made though the court therein; or
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. c) The court deems it proper to relieve the party
therefrom
Definition: Is admission same with confessions?

 Admission are confessions, concession, or voluntary acknowledgment made
by a party of the existence of certain facts NO. admissions as applied in criminal cases are avowals of facts from which guilt
 It is not essential that an admission be contrary to the interest of one of the may be inferred, tending only to prove the offense charged but not amounting to the
parties at the time it is made; it is enough that it be inconsistent with the confession of guilt. Admissions are insufficient itself to authorize conviction
position which a party takes wither in pleadings or at trial
 General Rule: they do not require proof Form
o Unless: admissions in the pleading were withdrawn and a) Direct or express- admissions made in direct terms
amendments were made because they are considered as b) Implied admissions- are those made in some other connection or involved in
extrajudicial admissions and requires proof the admission of some other fact
When made
Elements: (a) in pleadings and motions
1. party: it must be made by one of the parties to the case (admission by a  Acknowledgment or recognition by one party of the truth of some matter
non- party is not what is contemplated by this Rule) alleged by the opposite party, made in pleading, the effect of which is to
2. same case: the admission, to be judicial, must be made in the course of the narrow the area of facts of allegations required to be proved by evidence
proceedings in the same case in which it is offered. (statements in the pleadings uncontroverted is deemed admitted)
3. No particular form: it may be done orally or in writing  Allegation not denied is deemed not controverted, and the silence of the
4. When made: (a)in the pleadings; (b)during the trial by verbal or written pleader is deemed as and admission against him
manifestations or stipulations; (c)in other stages of the judicial proceeding o Exceptions: immaterial allegations, conclusions, non-ultimate
facts, amount of unliquidated damages
 Admissions made by a party to his pleading cannot be controverted by the
“made in the same case in which it is offered” party making such admission in conclusive as to him; all other proofs
 Admission made in another judicial proceedings will not be deemed a submitted by him inconsistent with such admission shall be ignored
judicial admission in another case where the admission was not made. (remember however, the exceptions, when they may be allowed to be
Instead it will be considered as an extrajudicial admission for purposes of controverted by the admitter)
other proceedings where such admission is offered  Note however that an answer is a mere statement of a fact which the party
 Judicial admissions made in one case is admissible at the trial of another filing it expects to prove. And in spite the presence of judicial admissions in
case provided that: a party’s pleading, the trial court is still given leeway to consider other
a) They are proved and evidence presented
[doctrine] In the case at bench, we find that the respondent Court of Appeals
(b) during trial committed an error in appreciating the "Answer" filed by the lawyer of Intertrade as
an admission of corporate liability for the subject loan. A careful study of the
(c) other stages of the trial responsive pleading filed by Atty. Francisco Pangilinan, counsel for Intertrade,
would reveal that there was neither express nor implied admission of corporate
liability warranting the application of the general rule. Thus, the alleged judicial
1. Pretrial admission may be contradicted and controverted because it was taken out of context
 Facts subject of a stipulation or agreement entered into by the parties at and no admission was made at all.
the pre-trial of the case constitute judicial admissions by them
 In criminal cases, an admission made by the accused in the pre-trial of a CASE 04: Aguenza vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (1997)
criminal case must be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and
counsel to be admitted. However, this does not apply equally to FACTS:
stipulation of facts made during trial. 1. The board of directors of Intertrade authorized and empowered Aguenza (the
President thereof) and Arrieta (Executive VP thereof) to jointly apply for and
2. Modes of Discovery open credit lines with Metrobank.
 Admissions in written interrogatories, depositions, or requests for 2. Pursuant to such authority, the two executed several trust receipts with Intertrade
admissions are considered as judicial admissions as entrustee and Metrobank as entruster. The two also executed a Continuing
Suretyship Agreement whereby both bound themselves jointly and severally
3. offer of plea of guilt with Intertrade to pay Metrobank whatever obligation Intertrade incurs.
3. The aforementioned LOC covered by said trust receipts were settled fully up to
this point.
How are judicial admission controverted? 4. Later, Arrieta (the VP) and one Lilia Perez (a bookkeeper of the same company)
General Rule as to the effects of judicial admission: obtained a P500k loan from Metrobank. Both executed a Promissory Note in
1. they do not require proof favor of the bank promising to pay the said amount plus interest per annum.
2. they cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive upon the party 5. Arrieta and Perez defaulted which prompted Metrobank to file a case against
making it Intertrade, Arrieta, Lilia Perez and her husband to collect the unpaid principal
Exceptions; How they may be controverted obligation, interests, fees, penalties and exemplary damages. Later, Metrobank
1. by showing that the admission made by palpable mistake also impleaded Aguenza as liable on the account of the Continuing Surety
 one that is clear to the mind or plain to see Agreement previously executed by him.
 readily perceived by the senses or the mind 6. The trial court absolved Aguenza and Intertrade from liability and dismissed
2. by showing that no such admissions was made Metrobank’s complaint as against both and found Arrieta and the Perez as
 such that when the statement of the person taken out of the context jointly liable for the amounts in their personal capacity.
or that his statement was made not in the sense it is made to appear 7. Arrieta and Perez appealed the foregoing to the CA.
by the other party 8. The CA REVERSED the TC decision holding Aguenza and Intertrade jointly
 not denying the statement but the meaning attached to his and severally liable to Metrobank and in turn absolved Arrieta and Perez. The
statement as what appears to or made by the adverse party CA found that Intertrade admitted in its answer that the loan in question was
a corporate liability.
 The Decision states: “it seems clear from its answer that the loan
1. Aguenza vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. – 271 S 1 evidenced by the note was a corporate liability. Paragraph 1.3 of the
answer admits 'x x x defendant's obtention of the loan from the plaintiff
x x x'; the affirmative defenses admit default, and invoking the defense would authorize or even ratify such admission. In the absence of such ratification or
of usury, plead adjustment of excessive interest which Intertrade authority, such admission does not bind the corporation.
refused to make.
On the basis of this admission, it is no longer in point to discuss … o The respondent appellate court likewise adjudged Intertrade liable because
the question of the capacity in which Arrieta and Perez signed the of the two letters emanating from the office of Mr. Arrieta which the
promissory note, Intertrade's admission of its corporate liability being respondent court considered "as indicating the corporate liability of the
admission also that the signatories signed the note in a representative corporation.
capacity. The Bank itself gave corroboration with its insistence on
Intertrade's liability under the note. x x x”  "Ratification can never be made on the part of the corporation by the
same persons who wrongfully assume the power to make the contract,
DOCTRINE: The general rule that "the allegations, statements, or admissions but the ratification must be by the officer as governing body having
contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader” is not an absolute and authority to make such contract." (Vicente vs. Geraldez)
inflexible rule and is subject to exceptions. Rule 129, Section 4, of the Rules of  The unauthorized act of respondent Arrieta can only be ratified by the
Evidence, provides: action of the Board of Directors and/or petitioner Aguenza jointly with
private respondent Arrieta (which was the practice of the company).
"Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in
the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The o The enabling corporate act on this transaction has not been obtained (VP
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable alone without concurrence from the President).
mistake or that no such admission was made." (Underlining supplied)
2. Philamgen vs. Sweet Lines, Inc. – 212 S 195
In other words, an admission in a pleading on which a party goes to trial may be
contradicted by showing that it was made by improvidence or mistake or that 1. A maritime suit was commenced by the herein petitioner against the
no such admission was made, i.e., "not in the sense in which the admission was respondents. The former is seeking recovery of the cost of lost or damaged
made to appear or the admission was taken out of context." shipment plus exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs allegedly due to
defendants' negligence.
ISSUE: WON there was an admission in the answer by Intertrade’s counsel as to the 2. It would appear that in or about March 1977, the vessel SS "VISHVA
corporate liability of the same on the loan obtained by Arrieta and Perez. YASH" belonging to or operated by the foreign common carrier, took on
board at Baton Rouge, LA, certain cargoes which belonged to Tagum
RULING: NO. The Court of Appeals committed an error in appreciating the Plastics (one of the petitioners). The cargoes were likewise insured by the
"Answer" filed by the lawyer of Intertrade as an admission of corporate liability for Tagum Plastics Inc. with plaintiff Philippine American General Insurance
the subject loan. A careful study of the responsive pleading filed by Atty. Francisco Co., Inc.
Pangilinan, counsel for Intertrade, would reveal that there was neither express nor 3. In the course of time, the said vessel arrived at Manila and discharged its
implied admission of corporate liability warranting the application of the general cargoes in the Port of Manila for transshipment to Davao City. For this
rule. Thus, the alleged judicial admission may be contradicted and controverted purpose, the foreign carrier awaited and made use of the services of the
because it was taken out of context and no admission was made at all. vessel called M/V "Sweet Love" owned and operated by defendant
interisland carrier.
Assuming arguendo that there was an admission, the same may not still be given 4. Subject cargoes were loaded in Holds Nos. 2 and 3 of the interisland carrier.
effect at all. The alleged admission made in the answer by the counsel for Intertrade These were commingled with similar cargoes belonging to Evergreen
was "without any enabling act or attendant ratification of corporate act,” as Plantation and also Standfilco.

5. At the time when the shipment was already discharged from the interisland Philamgen’s failure to specifically deny the existence, much less the genuineness and
carrier into the custody of the consignee, it was discovered that the cargo is due execution, of the instruments in question amounts to an admission. Judicial
incomplete. admissions, verbal or written, made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of
6. The Bill of lading of the said shipment states that there should be a total the trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no evidence being
number of 7,000 bags. What happened was that, of said shipment totalling required to prove the same, and cannot be contradicted unless shown to have been
7,000 bags, originally contained in 175 pallets, only a total of 5,820 bags made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Moreover,
were delivered to the consignee in good order condition, leaving a balance when the due execution and genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted
of 1,080 bags. because of the adverse party's failure to make a specific verified denial thereof, the
7. Some bags were either shortlanded or were missing, and some of the 1,080 instrument need not be presented formally in evidence for it may be considered an
bags were torn, the contents thereof partly spilled or were fully/partially admitted fact.
emptied, but, worse, the contents thereof contaminated with foreign matters
and therefore could no longer serve their intended purpose. The position
taken by the consignee was that even those bags which still had some The Court of Appeals resolved that although the bills of lading were not offered in
contents were considered as total losses as the remaining contents were evidence, the litigation obviously revolves on such bills of lading which are
contaminated with foreign matters and therefore did not (sic) longer serve practically the documents or contracts sued upon, hence, they are inevitably involved
the intended purpose of the material. and their provisions cannot be disregarded in the determination of the relative rights
8. PHILAMGEN’s CONTENTION: SLI (respondent) failed to adduce any of the parties thereto.
evidence in support f the ground of prescription and that the bills of lading
said to contain the shortened periods for filing and for instituting a court Petitioners' failure to specifically deny the existence, much less the genuineness and
action against the carrier were never offered in evidence. due execution, of the instruments in question amounts to an admission. Judicial
9. SLI’s CONTENTION: It is standard practice in its operations to issue bills admissions, verbal or written, made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of
of lading for shipment s entrusted to it for carriage and that it issued bills of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no evidence being
lading. required to prove the same, and cannot be contradicted unless shown to have been
made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Moreover,
ISSUE/S: WON the bill of lading may be considered as evidence though not when the due execution and genuineness of an instrument are deemed admitted
formally offered. because of the adverse party's failure to make a specific verified denial thereof, the
instrument need not be presented formally in evidence for it may be considered an
HELD: YES. The bill of lading may be considered as evidence though not formally admitted fact.
offered.
Thus, while petitioners objected to the validity of such agreement for being contrary
RATIO: Although the bills of lading were not offered in evidence, the litigation to public policy, the existence of the bills of lading and said stipulations were
obviously revolves on such bills of lading which are practically the documents or nevertheless impliedly admitted by them.
contracts sued upon, hence, they are inevitably involved and their provisions cannot
be disregarded in the determination of the relative rights of the parties thereto. Hence, for the reasons already advanced, the noninclusion of the controverted bills of
The bills of lading can be categorized as actionable documents which under the lading in the formal offer of evidence cannot, under the facts of this particular case,
Rules must be properly pleaded either as causes of action or defenses, and the be considered a fatal procedural lapse as would bar respondent carrier from raising
genuineness and due execution of which are deemed admitted unless specifically the defense of prescription. Petitioners' feigned ignorance of the provisions of the
denied under oath by the adverse party. bills of lading, particularly on the time limitations for filing a claim and for
commencing a suit in court, as their excuse for noncompliance therewith does not
deserve serious attention.
of sale to Carlos—because Alano made admissions during the pre-trial conference of
the criminal proceeding and such is binding to him.
3. Arturo Alano vs. CA, Roberto Carlos – 283 S 269
Ratio:
1. the criminal case: Alano was charged with estafa in the RTC of Manila. The
information alleged that Alano first sold a parcel of land to private In this regard, the pretrial provision on criminal procedure found in Rule 118 of the
respondent Carlos which the latter was able to fulfill payment. In spite of the Rules of Court provides:
sale, Alano subsequently sold the same parcel of land to a certain Erlinda
Dandoy, thereby depriving Carlos of rightful ownership and possession of Sec. 2. Pre-trial conference; subjects. x x x. The pre-trial
the said land. conference shall consider the following:
2. The motion to suspend the criminal proceedings: Alano then filed a
motion with the RTC to suspend proceedings due to a pending civil action (a) Plea bargaining; (b)Stipulation of facts
filed 5 years prior to the present criminal action. the said pending civil action
concerns the nullity of the sale made by Alano to Carlos. It was alleged by 1. From the foregoing, there is no question that a stipulation of facts by the parties in
Alano in such case that Carlos forged his signature in the Deed of sale and a criminal case is recognized as declarations constituting judicial admissions, hence,
never sold the lot to Carlos. According to Alano, the civil action poses a binding upon the parties and by virtue of which the prosecution dispensed with the
prejudicial question which shall determine his guilt in the estafa case (if there introduction of additional evidence and the defense waived the right to contest or
is no sale to Carlos, there is no estafa) dispute the veracity of the statement contained in the exhibit.
3. Decision of the RTC and the CA; denial of the motion: the RTC rendered a
decision denying the motion to suspend proceedings. This was upheld by the 2. Accordingly, the stipulation of facts stated in the pretrial order amounts to an
CA upon the filing of Alano of a petition for certiorari and prohibition. admission by the petitioner resulting in the waiver of his right to present evidence on
a. Ratio of the CA (very important): although there seems to be his behalf.
merit with the contention of Alano raising the issue of prejudicial
question, the same cannot be upheld for the purpose of suspending 3. Accordingly, petitioners admission in the stipulation of facts during the pretrial of
the criminal proceedings because during the pre-trial conference the criminal amounts to a waiver of his defense of forgery in the civil case.
and as seen in the pre-trial order of the criminal case, Alano
admitted to the validity of his signature in the first deed of sale 4. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that the pretrial order was signed by the
between him and Carlos, as well as his subsequent petitioner himself. As such, the rule that no proof need be offered as to any facts
acknowledgment of his signature in twentythree (23) cash admitted at a pretrial hearing applies.
vouchers evidencing the payments made by Carlos. Moreover, it
was also noted by the Court of Appeals that petitioner even wrote
to the private respondent offering to refund whatever sum the latter 4. People vs. Solayao – 262 SCRA 255
had paid. Being a judicial admission, it is binding to Alano.
[doctrine] In the case at bar, the prosecution was only able to prove by testimonial
Issue: Should the criminal proceedings be suspended? No. evidence that accusedappellant admitted before Police Officer Nio at the time that he
Controlling issue: Is Alano bound by his admissions during the pre-trial conference? was accosted that he did not have any authority or license to carry the subject firearm
Yes. when he was asked if he had one. In other words, the prosecution relied on accused-
appellant's admission to prove the second element.
Ruling: The Criminal proceedings should not be suspended by reason of the
prejudicial question posed by the pending civil action-- that is the validity of the deed
Is this admission sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of Biliran. They were to conduct an intelligence patrol as required of them by their
illegal possession of firearm which is that accusedappellant does not have the intelligence officer to verify reports on the presence of armed persons roaming
corresponding license? Corollary to the above question is whether an admission by around the barangays of Caibiran.
the accusedappellant can take the place of any evidentiary means establishing
beyond reasonable doubt the fact averred in the negative in the pleading and which 2. From Barangay Caulangohan, the team of Police Officer Niño proceeded to
forms an essential ingredient of the crime charged. Barangay Onion where they met the group of accused-appellant Nilo Solayao
numbering five. The former became suspicious when they observed that the latter
This Court answers both questions in the negative. By its very nature, an "admission were drunk and that accused-appellant himself was wearing a camouflage uniform or
is the mere acknowledgment of a fact or of circumstances from which guilt may be a jungle suit. Accused-appellant's companions, upon seeing the government agents,
inferred, tending to incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient of itself to establish his fled.
guilt." In other words, it is a "statement by defendant of fact or facts pertinent to
issues pending, in connection with proof of other facts or circumstances, to prove 3.Police Officer Niño told accused-appellant not to run away and introduced himself
guilt, but which is, of itself, insufficient to authorize conviction." as "PC," after which he seized the dried coconut leaves which the latter was carrying
and found wrapped in it a 49-inch long homemade firearm locally know as "latong."
From the above principles, this Court can infer that an admission in criminal cases is
insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged. -When he asked accused-appellant who issued him a license to carry said
firearm or whether he was connected with the military or any intelligence
Moreover, said admission is extrajudicial in nature. As such, it does not fall under group, the latter answered that he had no permission to possess the same.
Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court which states: Thereupon, SPO3 Niño confiscated the firearm and turned him over to the
"An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the trial or other custody of the policemen of Caibiran who subsequently investigated him
proceedings in the same case does not require proof." and charged him with illegal possession of firearm.
4. Accused-appellant, in his defense, did not contest the confiscation of the shotgun
Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused appellant does not prove but averred that this was only given to him by one of his companions, Hermogenes
beyond reasonable doubt the second element of illegal possession of firearm. It does Cenining, when it was still wrapped in coconut leaves. He claimed that he was not
not even establish a prima facie case. It merely bolsters the case for the prosecution aware that there was a shotgun concealed inside the coconut leaves since they were
but does not stand as proof of the fact of absence or lack of a license. using the coconut leaves as a torch.
5. RTC: found accused-appellant guilty of illegal possession of firearm under Section
This Court agrees with the argument of the Solicitor General that "while the 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866.
prosecution was able to establish the fact that the subject firearm was seized by the
police from the possession of appellant, without the latter being able to present any 6. This court, in the case of People v. Lualhati ruled that in crimes involving illegal
license or permit to possess the same, such fact alone is not conclusive proof that he possession of firearm, the prosecution has the burden of proving the elements
was not lawfully authorized to carry such firearm. In other words, such fact does not thereof, viz: (a) the existence of the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused
relieve the prosecution from its duty to establish the lack of a license or permit to who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to
carry the firearm by clear and convincing evidence, like a certification from possess the same.
the government agency concerned.
7. In the case at bar, the prosecution was only able to prove by testimonial evidence
CASE 7: PEOPLE v. SOLAYAO (1996) that accused-appellant admitted before Police Officer Niño at the time that he was
FACTS: accosted that he did not have any authority or license to carry the subject firearm
1. The lone prosecution witness, SPO3 Jose Niño, narrated that at about 9PM of July when he was asked if he had one. In other words, the prosecution relied on accused-
9, 1992, with CAFGU members, he went to Barangay Caulangohan, Caibiran, appellant's admission to prove the second element.
equally within the control of each party, then the burden of proof is upon the party
ISSUE/S: Is this admission sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second averring the negative."
element of illegal possession of firearm which is that accused-appellant does not In this case, a certification from the Firearms and Explosives Unit of the Philippine
have the corresponding license? National Police that accused-appellant was not a licensee of a firearm of any kind or
caliber would have sufficed for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
Corollary to the above question is whether an admission by the accused- second element of the crime of illegal possession of firearm.
appellant can take the place of any evidentiary means establishing beyond reasonable
doubt the fact averred in the negative in the pleading and which forms an essential
ingredient of the crime charged. Rule 130.
RATIO: This Court answers both questions in the negative. By its very nature, an  There are four sources of evidence that may be presented in court:
1. Real or Object Evidence- the presentation of a physical object in court
"admission is the mere acknowledgment of a fact or of circumstance from which
2. Testimonial Evidence- testimony of persons whether oral or written
guilt may be inferred, tending to incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient of itself to
3. Circumstantial evidence- by inference from other facts which are known
establish his guilt." In other words, it is a "statement by defendant of fact or facts 4. Documentary evidence- offer of documents
pertinent to issues pending, in connection with proof of other facts or circumstances,
to prove guilt, but which is, of itself, insufficient to authorize conviction." From the
above principles, this Court can infer that an admission in criminal cases is RULE 130 SECTION 1 – OBJECT EVIDENCE
insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged.
Section 1. Objects as evidence are addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is
Moreover, said admission is extra-judicial in nature. As such, it does not fall under relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to or examined or viewed by the court.
Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court which states: An admission,
What is object evidence?
verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the trial or other proceedings in
 Evidence furnished by the thing the things themselves, on view or inspection
the same case does not require proof.  Is what which is directly to the senses of the court, as by actual sight, hearing, taste,
smell, or touch
Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused-appellant does not prove
beyond reasonable doubt the second element of illegal possession of firearm. It does In contrast with other sources of evidence:
not even establish a prima facie case. It merely bolsters the case for the prosecution  It is not a description of them by the mouth of a witness
but does not stand as proof of the fact of absence or lack of a license.  It does not refer to a perception of the witness and a recollection of that perception
 Not a reconstruction of past events as related by a witness
This Court agrees with the argument of the Solicitor General that "while the
What is the rationale behind the admissibility of Real/ Object Evidence?
prosecution was able to establish the fact that the subject firearm was seized by the  It allows the court, instead of relying on the recollection of the witness, to have
police from the possession of appellant, without the latter being able to present any its own firsthand perception of the evidence
license or permit to possess the same, such fact alone is not conclusive proof that he  to a rational man of perfect organization, the best and the highest proof of which any
was not lawfully authorized to carry such firearm. In other words, such fact does not fact is susceptible is the evidence of his senses.
relieve the prosecution from its duty to establish the lack of a license or permit to o This is the ultimate test of truth, and is, therefore, the first principle in the
carry the firearm by clear and convincing evidence, like a certification from the philosophy of evidence
government agency concerned." o The evidence from one’s own senses furnishes the strongest probability
and indeed the only perfect and indubitable certainty of the existence of
Putting it differently, "when a negative is averred in a pleading, or a plaintiff's case any sensible fact
Some examples:
depends upon the establishment of a negative, and the means of proving the fact are
1. exhibition of the person to show his missing limbs, scars, wounds, skin color a. but if viewing is necessary in the interest of justice, the evidence may be
2. the weapon used in attacking the victim exhibited by the court may exclude the public from such view
3. in infringement cases of musical compositions, the music may be listened to by the b. viewing may not be refused if the indecent or immoral object constitutes
court the very basis for the criminal or civil action
4. examination of the anatomy of a person or of any sibstance taken therefrom 2. If it would result in delays, inconvenience and expenses out of proportion to the
5. conduct of tests, demostrations, or experiments evidentiary value of the object
6. examination of representative portrayals of the object in question 3. Such would be confusing or misleading
7. Documents—only of the same are presented for the following purposes: 4. Testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object
a. To prove their existence or condition or the nature of the handwritings as to render viewing unnecessary
b. To determine the age of the paper used or the blemishes or alterations
Categories of Object Evidence
1. Unique Objects- readily identifiable marks
Probative Value of Object Evidence a. Ex: caliber revolver with serial number
 Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in 2. Objects made Unique- objects that are made readily identifiable
our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence such that when physical evidence contradicts a. Ex: knife with the name of the owner
the testimonial evidence, the physical evidence should prevail 3. Non-Unique Objects – objects with no identifying marks and cannot be marked
 but failure to present will not necessarily weaken the evidence presented a. Ex: Drugs in powder form
Requisites for the admissibility of object evidence Demonstrative Evidence

1. the evidence must be relevant and not excluded by the rules or the law  is evidence in the form of a representation of an object. This is, as opposed to, real
2. the evidence must be authenticated evidence, testimony, or other forms of evidence used at trial
3. the authentication must be made by a competent witness o photos, x-rays, videtapes, movies, sound recordings, diagrams, forensiv
4. the object must be formally offered in evidence. animations, maps, drawings, graphs, animation, simulations, and models
Authentication Autoptic Preference

 Threshold question: is it the actual object that it is claimed to be? Is it the real thing? Simply means a tribunal’s self-perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself
 It must be shown that it is the very thing that is either the subject matter of the It is referred to as the evidential datum which decision-makers will perceive using their five
lawsuit or the very one involved to prove an issue in the case senses
Authentication by a competent witness CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE

 To authenticate the object, there must be someone who should identify the object to  As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
be the actual thing involved in the litigation. admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
 The witness must have the capacity to identify the object as the very thing involved the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.
in the litigation.  It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item
o He must have actual and personal knowledge of the thing he is presenting was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where
the following may be Real Evidence: it was and what happened to it while in the witnesses' possession, the condition in
1. Articles or persons which may be exhibited inside or outside the courtroom which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in
2. Inspection of objects or places the chain.
3. Experiment  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
Court may refuse introduction of object evidence and rely on testimonial evidence alone if: the chain to have possession of the same. (People v. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, 19
1. exhibition is contrary to public policy, morals, or decency January 2010).

Essential links in the chain of custody of seized illegal drugs 1. the Accused Manalo was charged with two counts of murder of the victims Bonilla
1. FIRST, the seizure and marking, of practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from and Diomampo. Both informations stated that Manalo shot both victims using a an
the accused by the apprehending officer unlicensed pistolized Colt Caliber .45, with Serial No. 362134.
2. Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the 2. During the trial, the court gave credence to the testimony of the witness Carlos
investigating officer Lacbay. He stated that, and as the court has summarized:
3. Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic a. one night of November 1981, Lacbay visited the victims to pick up some
chemist to the court; camote and wine. After their conversation, the victims decided to
4. Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the accompany Lacbay home and each rode their respective tricycles.
forensic chemist to the court b. When they arrived to the place of delivery of the camotes, appellant
Manalo approached the victims and Lacbay and invited them to his home
 Strict compliance of the requisites can be disregarded as long as the evidentiary for drinks.
value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved; and its preservation c. After Diomampo and Bonilla entered the house of appellant and were
can be well established of the chain of custody of illegal drug was unbroken. about to reach the interior portion thereof, appellant, who was then at the
o Testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost doorway followed behind by Lacbay, suddenly and without any warning
always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain...what is of utmost shot Diomampo once on the head and then Bonilla also once on the temple
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of at a distance of about three (3) meters from behind, with a .45 caliber
the seized items.” pistol with a magazine. Diomampo and Bonilla fell down to the floor
Is the presentation of the informant necessary? dead. Thereafter, appellant again fired one more [shot] at Diomampo.
No. Lacbay who was standing a meter behind appellant, was so shocked that
he was unable to move.
3. Decision of the Trial Court; guilty: the trial court found the accused Manalo guilty
Failure to immediately mark seized drugs as well as to take photographs will not of 2 counts of Murder beyond reasonable doubt.
automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody. 4. Hence, the present action by accused praying for the reversal of the finding of guilt
of Manalo. He assigns as error, among all others, the absence of physical evidence
showing that he himself fired a gun using the paraffin test.
Presumption of regularity, standing alone cannot defeat the presumption of innocence Issue: Should the appellant be acquitted by reason of the failure to present physical evidence
•The presumption that the police officers regularly performed their duty cannot, standing that he indeed fired the gun that killed the two victims?
alone, defeat the presumption of innocence of the accused. Generally, law enforcers are
presumed to have regularly performed their duty, but this is a mere procedural presumption Ruling: No.
which cannot overturn the constitutionally recognized presumption of innocence of the
accused where lapses in the buy bust operation are shown. An effect of this lapse, as held in The absence of physical evidence showing that he fired a gun would not prove his innocence.
Lopez v. People, is to negate the presumption that official duties have been regularly In fact, even if he were subjected to a paraffin test and the same yields a negative finding, it
performed by the police officers. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and cannot be definitely concluded that he had not fired a gun as it is possible for one to fire a gun
should make the presumption unavailable (People v. Martin, G.R. No. 193234, 19 October and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates as when the hands are washed before the test.
2011).
The Court has even recognized the great possibility that there will be no paraffin traces on the
hand if, as in the instant case, the bullet was fired from a .45 Caliber pistol
5. People vs. Manalo – 219 S 656 People vs. Malimit – 264 S 167
Facts: Facts:

1. Appellant Malimit was charged with the special complex crime of robbery with Hence, in the present case, even if indeed he was not informed of his rights, these
homicide of the victim Malaki. constitutional shortcuts do not affect the admissibility of Malaki's wallet, identification card,
2. During trial, it was established by the accounts of the two witnesses Batin the home residence certificate and keys for the purpose of establishing other facts relevant to the crime.
cook of Malaki and by Rondon, a neighbor that: Thus, the wallet is admissible to establish the fact that it was the very wallet taken from
a. One night of April 1999, when Malaki was attending to his store, Batid Malaki on the night of the robbery. The identification card, residence certificate and keys
proceeded to the said store to ask if he was to prepare supper. Much to his found inside the wallet, on the other hand, are admissible to prove that the wallet really
surprise, he saw the appellant Malimit coming out of the store with a bolo, belongs to Malaki.
while his boss was bathing in his own blood on the floor.
b. Rondon, who was outside and barely five (5) meters away from the store, Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that these pieces of evidence are inadmissible, the same
also saw appellant Jose Malimit rushing out through the front door of will not detract from appellant's culpability considering the existence of other evidence and
Malaki's store with a bloodstained bolo. Rondon clearly recognized circumstances establishing appellant's identity and guilt as perpetrator of the crime charged.
Malimit
3. Decision of the trial court: the trial court convicted Malimit with the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide and was sentenced with the penalty of People vs. Jumamoy – 221 S 333
reclusion perpetua.
4. Hence the present action by the appellant Malimit. Among all others to support his Facts:
prayer for acquittal, he argues that the admission as evidence of the victim’s wallet 1. Jumamoy was charged with Murder and Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm and
with its contents, and a bunch of keys violates his right against self- incrimination. Ammunition.
2. It as established during trial that:
Issue: May the appellant invoke the right against self-incrimination to the admission of object a. One evening of April 1987, victim Miel with his brother and some other
evidence? companions went to the disco of St. Paul Academy in the Cultural Center
if Inabanga Bohol.
Ruling: No. b. While the friends were conversing with each other, all of a sudden, the
appellant Jumamoy appeared in front obliquely to the right of the victim
The right against selfincrimination guaranteed under our fundamental law finds no application and fired three successive shots at the latter who slumped and fell to the
in this case. It is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the [accused]'s own ground.
lips, against his will, admission of his guilt. It does not apply to the instant case where the 3. The trial court rendered a decision finding guilt on both charges.
evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object evidence. 4. Hence, the present action by the appellant Jumamoy arguing among all others that
Wigmore, discussing the question now before us in his treatise on evidence, thus, said: he should be acquitted because the prosecution failed to present and introduce as
evidence the firearm which was allegedly used in killing the victim.
If, in other words (the rule) created inviolability not only for his [physical
control of his] own vocal utterances, but also for his physical control in Issue: Should the appellant Jumamy be acquitted on the failure of the prosecution to present
whatever form exercise, then, it would be possible for a guilty person to shut the firearm used?
himself up in his house, with all the tools and indicia of his crime, and defy
the authority of the law to employ in evidence anything that might be obtained Ruling: No.
by forcibly overthrowing his possession and compelling the surrender of the
evidential articles — a clear reduction ad absurdum. In other words, it is not 1. There is no law or rule of evidence which requires the prosecution to do so; there is
merely compulsion that is the kernel of the privilege, . . . but testimonial also no law which prescribes that a ballistics examination be conducted to determine
compulsion the source and trajectory of the bullets.
2. For conviction to lie it is enough that the prosecution establishes by proof beyond
Furthermore, the Miranda Rights will also not apply as to the admissibility of evidence as reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the accused is the author
violations of Miranda rights will only have the effect of making the extrajudicial confession or thereof.
admissions during custodial investigation inadmissible.

3. The production of the weapon used in the commission of the crime is not a condition It has been held that the negative findings of the paraffin test do not conclusively show that a
sine qua non for the discharge of such a burden for the weapon may not have been person did not discharge a firearm at the time the crime was committed for the absence of
recovered at all from the assailant. nitrates is possible if a person discharged a firearm with gloves on, or if he thoroughly washed
4. If the rule were to be as proposed by the accused, many criminals would go scotfree his hands thereafter. Since accusedappellant submitted himself for paraffin test 3 days after the
and much injustice would be caused to the victims of crimes, their families and shooting, it is likely that he has already washed his hands thoroughly and removed all traces of
society. nitrates in his hand.
5. In the instant case, it was established with moral certainty that the accused
attacked, assaulted and shot the victim Rolando Miel with an unlicensed firearm,
thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple gunshot wounds which caused his death. It has also been held that the nonpresentation by the prosecution of the gun used and the slug
Such proof was all that was needed for the conviction of the accused. recovered from the body of the victim is not fatal to the case when there is positive
identification of the assailant, as in the instant case.
People vs. Flores – 328 S 461
Facts:
1. the Appellant Jianggo Flores was charged with the crime of Murder of Antonio
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Garcia using a handgun
2. it was established during the trial that: RULE 130 SECTION 3 – BEST EVIDENCE RULE
a. Antonio Garcia, the victim, was celebrating his birthday and having a
drinking spree with his invited guests. They were all at the backyard of the Take note of the pre-trial provision:
house of Garcia. “No Evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of a
b. Myla is the daughter of Jianggo who positively identified him as the party’s evidence in- chief other than those that had been earlier identified and pre-marked
assailant when, according to her testimony, she saw Flores stading at arms during the pre-trial except if allowed by the court for good cause shown.”
length away from her and 3 arms length away from his father holding and  Note however, that this rule will not apply for documents presented and offered as
pointing a gun towards him. rebuttal or sur-rebuttal evidence.
c. She tried to warn his father but Jianggo already fired his gun.
d. He died of hemorrhage due to gunshot wound caused by a bullet fired B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
from a handgun believed to be a .38 caliber. The bullet hit first the left arm
of Antonio Garcia towards the left side of his stomach and landed on his Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or any
left lung. A deformed slug measuring 0.2 centimeter by 2 centimeters was material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
extracted from his left leg. expression offered as proof of their contents.
3. The trial court found him guilty of the murder of Antonio Garcia.
4. Hence the present appeal by the appellant Jianggo Flores contending among all What is a documentary evidence?
others, that the gun supposedly used to kill the victim and the slugs were never Documents as evidence not only refer to writing but also any other material like objects as
presented in evidence as well as he tested negative during the paraffin test. long as it contains letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expression and offered as proof of their contents.
Issue: Was the prosecution able to establish the guilt of the appellant?  RA 8792 gave recognition of the admissibility of electronic documents and
electronic data messages as evidence. It shall function equivalent to a written paper-
based document under existing laws.
Ruling: Yes. The fact that accusedappellant tested negative in the paraffin test; that the
prosecution did not present the gun used in the commission of the crime and the slug
recovered from the body of the victim is of no moment. Purpose
 Applies only when the contents of a document is the subject of inquiry
 It must be offered as the proof of their contents .

 If it is offered for some other purpose the writings or materials would not be deemed
as documentary evidence but merely an object evidence. Section 4. Original of document. —
 Note however that the private document may be offered and admitted in evidence
both as documentary evidence and as object evidence depending on the purpose for (a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of
which it is offered. inquiry.
o When the purpose of the document is offered to show its existence,
condition other than as proof of its contents, it is object evidence. (b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time,
 Why is it important to differentiate and distinguish one from the other? rules are with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.
different. Best evidence rule, hearsay rule, and parol evidence rule does not apply in
object evidence (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied
from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise
Requisites of admissibility of document as documentary evidence: equally regarded as originals.
1. the document must be relevant
2. the evidence must be authenticated Also called the original document rule or the primary evidence rule
3. it must be authenticated by a competent witness  The rule means that no evidence which is merely substitutionary in its nature shall
4. the document must be formally offered in evidence be received so long as original evidence can be had.
5. it is competent as such document is not excluded by the rules of court or by law  The only rule which requires the production of the original writing.
(e.g., best evidence rule, hearsay, and parol evidence rule)  The rule does not pertain to the weight or probative value of the document but
merely requires that the original document is what should be presented
BPI v Reyes GR 157177 February 11, 2008

What is the rationale behind the best evidence rule?
 There is a need to present to the court the actual and exact words of the writing so as
prevent fraud or mistake in the proof of the contents of the writing
 To prevent erroneous interpretations or distortions of a writing
1. Best Evidence Rule
When does the Best Evidence Rule apply?
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of  The law only applies when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document
inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original  The subject of the inquiry must be the contents and not the truth of the documents
document itself, except in the following cases: itself
 The best evidence does not apply to external or collateral facts about the
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, document
without bad faith on the part of the offeror; o When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns some external fact
about the document such as existence, execution, or delivery without
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against reference to its terms, the best evidence rule cannot be invoked.
whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable
notice; What is the effect of the best evidence rule?
 It prevents the party from proving the contents of the writing by oral testimony or by
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which using a copy thereof if the original itself is available.
cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
What are the documents that are considered as original?
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office. (2a)
Generally, it refers to the original as the first one written from which mere copies are made,
transcribed or imitated. 1. when the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without
bad faith on the part of the offeror
However, subsequent documents may also regarded as originals: 2. 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
3. when the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents ehich cannot be
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established
with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals. from them is only the general result of the whole (e.g., the best evidence of elections
results are the ballots themselves, however, checking each and every ballots would
be impractical. Hence, the returns may be used instead)
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied 4. when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded
from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise in a public office
equally regarded as originals. other reasons:
 the document is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the courts
Hence, the following are considered as originals:  when the original consists of inscriptions on immovable objects and monuments
o when a document is executed in several duplicate originals such as tombstones
o writings with identical contents by mass production (e.g., newspapers)
o copies through carbon sheets
o documents executed in duplicate or multiplicate form 2. Secondary Evidence
o printout of an electronic document
not originals:
o photocopies of a form Section 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the original document has been
o facsimile lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or
existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its
o certified true copies of public documents
contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
How should the best evidence rule be applied? Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence in case of loss, destruction, or
unavailability of the original
First. Determine the matter inquired into. If it involves a document, and the contents
thereof are the subjects of the inquiry, then the best evidence must be applied. 1. the offeror must prove the execution and the existence of the original document
 The rule requires that the original document must be presented and not merely a 2. the offeror must show the cause of its unavailability or loss
copy thereof. 3. the offeror must show that the unavailability was not caused by his bad faith
 Other evidence can be substituted for the original for as long as the latter is
available. after establishing the said requisites, the contents of the documents may now be proven by
Second. If for one reason or another, the original document cannot be presented in court, the secondary evidence.
party must:
a. find an adequate legal excuse for the failure to present the original of the The hierarchy of preferred secondary evidence must be strictly followed:
document and 1. copy of the original
b. present secondary evidence as provided for by the Rules of Court 2. a recital of the contents of the document in some authentic document
3. testimony of witnesses.
What are the adequate legal excuses for the failure to present the original of the
document for the court to allow presentation of substitutes or secondary evidence?

Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. — If the 1. Borje vs. Sandiganbayan – 125 S 763
document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party, he must have reasonable
notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to
produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. JUSTICE ESCAREAL:
Q — What evidence do you have that you were removed in 1977 and you were no longer
 Mere fact that the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse performing your duties as technician?
party will not ipso facto authorize the presentation of secondary evidence. The
following must be shown: A — It is only verbal. (TSN, p. 47, Aug. 25, 1980)
(1) That the original exists
(2) That the said document is under the custody or control of the adverse party
(3) That the proponent/ offeror of the secondary evidence have the adverse Facts:
party notice to produce the original document 1. Borje was charged with the crime of Falsification of Public Document before the
i. May be done through a motion to produce the document RTC. during the trial of the case, it was established by the testimonies of the
ii. Subpoena duces tecum witnesses of the prosecution that:
(4) The adverse party failed or refused to produce the original document a. The accused, being the Provincial Plant industry Officer of the Bureau of
despite the reasonable notice Plant Industry in San Fernando La Union, falsified the Timebook, Payroll,
and the Daily Time Record of his office for the periods January to March
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. — When the of 1977 and made it appear that the complainaint Ducusin worked for such
original of document is in the custody of public officer or is recorded in a public office, its period of time.
contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. b. Ducusin alleged that the accused made it appear that he has claimed his
wages for such period, contrary to the fact that by January until April of
Why? There are instances when the original of a document is a public record or is recorded in 1977, he was detailed in another position by a only a verbal order. Hence,
a public place. Public records are generally not to be removed from the placed where they are he could not have signed the Daily Time Record and accept the incentives
recorded. and wages therein.
 Hence, certified true copies issued by the public officer is sufficient as secondary 2. The trial court rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty as charged.
evidence 3. The Sandiganbayan upheld the decision of the lower court in finding guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
4. Hence, the present action by the accused Borje arguing that:
Requisites for presenting secondary evidence for originals consisting of numerous a. The prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime charged
accounts because of its failure to present the original copies of the alleged falsified
(1) Original consists of numerous accounts or other documents documents.
(2) They cannot be examined in court without great loss of time b. And the accused, as the Provincial Plant Officer merely affixed his
(3) The fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole signature as part of the Standard Operating Procedure of the office payroll.
Hence, in this case, the court may allow a witness to offer a summary of a number of He contended that there was no actual order known by him that Ducusin
documents. Note however that the voluminous records must be made available to the was already detailed in another position to the effect that it would be
adverse party for verification and tested for cross examination. established that Ducusin was no longer entitled to incentives and payroll
Example: accountant may present a written summary of some sales invoices
Issue: Was the prosecution able to adduce evidence sufficient to convict the accused Appellant
Borje of guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party who calls for the
production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence. Ruling: No.

1st Issue: It was not established that the complainant had in fact been ordered to be detailed in a. The CA ruled that the TCTs of Ortigas were derivative of ICT No. 351
another position so as to render him without right to receive the incentives and be included in which covers the same parcel of land of Widora. It ruled that OCT 351 is
the payroll. allegedly a copy of Decree 1425, the mere fact that the original copy of
Decree 1425, or a certified copy thereof, can no longer be produced, does
The alleged verbal order is doubtful for under normal and usual official procedure, a written not mean that the Decree covering the lots subject of this case was not
special order issued by a government office is cancelled, amended or modified only by another issued.
written special order, not only for purposes of record on file but also to prevent conflict and b. That although the TCTs of Ortigas did not reflect that it was derived from
confusion in government operations. Moreover, under the best evidence rule, Section 2, Rule OCT 351, the facts remains that the parcel of land covering OCT 351
130 of the Rules of Court, the supposed verbal order cannot prevail over the written Special includes the 2 parcels of land of Ortigas. Hence, there was a mistake in the
Order No. 172 stated above. recording of the TCTs of Ortigas which stated that it was not derived from
OCT 351 but of other OCTs.
2nd Issue:
5. the petitioner elevated the case with the Supreme Court. the Supreme court initially
In a criminal case for the falsification of a document, it is indispensable that the judges and the held that :
courts have before them the document alleged to have been simulated, counterfeited or a. Undoubtedly, the evidence (i.e., plan submitted by respondent Ortigas,
falsified, in order that they may find, pursuant to the evidence produced at the trial, whether or testimony of its surveyor and OCT 351) adduced by private respondent to
not the crime of falsification was actually committed; in the absence of the original document, prove the contents of Decree 1425 and admitted by respondent court is
it is improper to conclude, with only a copy of the said original in view, that there has been a merely secondary and should not have been admitted in the first place.
falsification of a document which was neither found nor exhibited, because, in such a case,
even the existence of such original document may be doubted. Hence, the present Motion for Reconsideration filed by Ortigas questioning the ruling of the
Supreme Court holding the OCTs and the survey of the engineer as inadmissible.
Issue: Should the evidence submitted by Ortigas be admitted in court?

2. Widows and Orphans Association (Widora), Inc. vs. CA and Ortigas and
Company– 212 S 360 Ruling. Yes.
Facts: After careful re-examination of the evidence of record and applicable rules of evidence, the
1. Widora filed before the RTC an application for registration of title of a parcel of Court considers that the word "secondary evidence" was inaccurate. The copy of OCT No. 351
land alleging that they have acquired the subject parcel of land from the heirs of the offered by Ortigas was a certified true copy of the original thereof found in the Registration
registered owner, Mariano San Pedro as seen in the Titulo Propriedad Numero 4136 Book of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. 18 The admissibility of such a copy in court
or OCT no. 351. They prayed that the parcel of land be registered in Widora’s name. proceedings is an exception to the ordinary rule on secondary evidence; 19 such admissibility
2. Opposition by Ortigas: Ortigas field a motion to dismiss alleging that land being is in fact mandated by Section 47 of Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act). 20 Under the
applied for registration by Widora have already been registered under the TCT Land Registration Act which was in force at the time OCT No. 351 was issued, the original
77652and TCT 77653 by the Decree 1425. Hence, the trial court had no jurisdiction thereof found in the Registration Book of the Register of Deeds of Rizal was an official
to decide on such. transcript of Decree No. 1425, with respect to the land covered by such decree situated in the
a. Ortigas submitted the following evidence to establish the contents of Province of Rizal. 21
Decree 1425 which purportedly included his lands in OCT 351: plan
submitted by respondent Ortigas, testimony of its surveyor and OCT 351. Thus, OCT No. 351 constitutes direct proof of the existence of Decree No. 1425 upon which
The decree itself was not submitted as evidence. the Ortigas TCTs (Nos. 77652 and 77653) are based. We believe further that the Court of
3. Decision by the trial court: denied that motion to dismiss of the petitioner Ortigas Appeals was justified in relying upon the plotting prepared by Engineer Carlos Angeles and
holding that the TCTs registered in the name of Ortigas were not derivatives of the his testimony explaining the significance thereof, notwithstanding the secondary nature of that
subject property and are in fact derivatives of other parcels of land. plotting and testimony. For, as will be seen shortly, authenticity and correctness of this survey
4. Not satisfied, Ortigas filed an action for certiorari before the CA to annul the plans and of Engineer Angeles's explanation thereof had already been judicially sustained in
decision of the RTC. previously decided cases.

4. Security Bank and Trust Co. vs. Triumph Lumber and Construction Corp. – 301 S
537
3. People vs. Tandoy – 192 S 28
1. The respondent TRIUMPH LUMBER filed an action against the petitioner Bank so
Facts: reimburse it the value of the alleged forged checks drawn against Triumph’s account
1. Tandoy was charged with the crime of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. in the petitioner Bank.
The information stated that the Tandoy sold pieces of dried marijuana flowering tops a. During the trial, it was established that the 3 checks which were drawn
which is a prohibited drug for, and in consideration of P20.00 against the account of the accused were all forged per findings of the PC
a. It was established during the trial that the accused was accosted through a Crime Laboratories. That the signatures of its authorized signatories were
buy- bust operation by the Makati Police. all forged.
b. During the trial, the marked money was not presented in court but merely b. However, the 3 original checks alleged to be forged were not submitted in
the photocopy of the same. court. instead, mere photocopies of the checks were presented as evidence.
2. The trial court rendered a decision convicting Tandoy guilty beyond reasonable 2. Decision of the trial court: the trial court found no preponderance of evidence to
doubt. support the complaint of the petitioner. It ruled that the private respondent failed to
3. Hence, the present action by Tandoy arguing among all others that it was an error show that the signatures on the subject checks were forged. It did not even present in
for the trial court to admit the photocopy of the marked money as such is contrary to court the originals of the checks. Neither did it bother to explain its failure to do so.
the best evidence rule. Thus, it could be presumed that the original checks were wilfully suppressed and
would be adverse to private respondents case if produced.
Issue: Was the court wrong to admit as evidence the photocopy of the marked money used in 3. on appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court and ordered the
the buy bust operation? petitioner to reimburse the private respondent. It held that it was not necessary
for the respondent to prove that the checks were forged because of the admissions
Ruling: No. the best evidence rule does not apply when the evidence is offered as an object made by the petitioner Bank and the unrebutted testimony of the expert witness.
evidence. 4. Hence the present action by the petitioner Bank arguing that:
that the best evidence of the forgery were the original checks bearing the
Apparently, appellant erroneously thinks that said marked money is an ordinary document alleged forged signatures of private respondents officers. In spite of the
falling under Sec. 2, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court which excludes the introduction timely objection made by the petitioner, the private respondent introduced
of secondary evidence except in the five (5) instances mentioned therein. in evidence mere photocopies of the questioned checks. The failure to
produce the originals of the checks was a fatal omission inasmuch as there
The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of would be no evidentiary basis for the court to declare that the instruments
inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed, or were forgeries.
exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule
does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. Issue: was the respondent able to establish the forgery on the checks?
Since the aforesaid marked money was presented by the prosecution solely for the purpose of Controlling issue: was is necessary for the respondent to present as evidence the original
establishing its existence and not its contents, other substitutionary evidence, like a xerox copy checks?
thereof, is therefore admissible without the need of accounting for the original.
Ruling: The respondent was not able to establish the forgery because it did not present the
original checks subject to the alleged forgery contrary to the best evidence rule of the Rules of
Moreover, the presentation at the trial of the "buy-bust money" was not indispensable to Court.
the conviction of the accused-appellant because the sale of the marijuana had been adequately
proved by the testimony of the police officers. So long as the marijuana actually sold by the
accused-appellant had been submitted as an exhibit, the failure to produce the marked money First, Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court was not complied with by private respondent.
itself would not constitute a fatal omission. The Section explicitly provides that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document,
no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. This is what is known

as the best evidence rule. This is however, subject to the exceptions stated in the same rule
when secondary evidence may be presented instead:
1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
2. 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;
3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot
be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact sought to be established
from them is only the general result of the whole; and
4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded
in a public office.
In the present case, the originals of the alleged forged checks had to be produced, since it
was never shown that any of these exceptions was present. What the private respondent
offered were mere photocopies of the checks in question marked as Exhibits A, B, and C.
It never explained the reason why it could not produce the originals of the checks.

RULE 130 SECTION 9 – PAROL EVIDENCE RULE  Evidence elicited from the mouth a witness distinguished from real and documentary
evidence
 Also called the viva voce evidence
3. Parol Evidence Rule
Theory and Basis
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an  Rests upon our faith in human testimony as sanctioned by experience; that the
general truth that men are of integrity, having capacity and having opportunity to
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms pervert the truth
agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. Elements of Testimonial Evidence
1. Observation
2. Recollection
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of 3. Narration
written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
Hence, the witness must have observed the events to which he is testifying, he must recollect
the events at the time he was testifying, and he must be able to communicate or narrate the
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement; said events in the court.
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and Hence, the basic qualifications of a witness as provided for in this rule:
1. can perceive
agreement of the parties thereto;
o a witness must be able to perceive an event
o the witness must have personal knowledge of the the facts surrounding the
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or subject matter of the testimony; those which were derived from his own
perception
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in
2. and in perceiving, can make known his perception to others.
interest after the execution of the written agreement. o This process involved two factors: First, ability to remember what he
perceived; and (2) ability to communicate the remembered perception
The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a) i. Deafmutes are not necessarily incompetent as witnesses if
they can understand and appreciate the sanctity of the oath;
comprehend the facts; they are going to testify to; and
1. Inciong, Jr. vs. CA – 257 S 578 communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter
2. National Irrigation Administration vs. Gamit – 215 S 436
3. possesses none of the disqualifications provided for by the rules
3. Gurango vs. IAC – 215 S 332
4. CKH Industrial and Development Corp. vs. CA – 272 S 333 4. must take either an oath or an affirmation as provided by the Rules
o necessary for the witness to recognize the obligation to tell the truth
o must understand the nature of the oath and realizes the moral duty to tell the
truth, and understands the prospects of being punished for falsehood
o oath if with religion; affirmation if no belief
RULE 130 SECTION 20 – WITNESSES
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in the next take note of the difference between competence and credibility
succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known Competence Credibility
perception to others, may be witnesses.
Matter of law or rule refers to the weight and trustworthiness;
reliability of the testimony
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless
o hence, a witness with varying and
otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (18a)
conflicting testimonies is still a
competent witness. However, his
Testimonial Evidence
testimonies may not be given that
much weight
Has reference to the basic qualifications of a Believability of the witness and has nothing Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. — The
witness as his capacity to perceive and to do with the rules following persons cannot be witnesses:
communicate what he perceived; as well as
the absence of any of the disqualifications (a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination,
imposed upon a witness is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to
Provided by the rules Discretion of the court: the manner of others;
assigning values to the declarations of
witnesses is best and competently performed (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of
by the trial judge who has the unique and perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them
unmatched opportunity to observe the truthfully.
demeanor of the witnesses and assess their
credibility (hence, observations of trial court o Note that in both cases, the incapacity that is referred must be at the time he is
judges are given weight when the cases are produced in court to testify and not at the time the subject of the testimony
put on appeal) happened. However, the incapacity during the occurrence of the event may affect his
credibility
Other factors not affecting the competency of witnesses
1. being a party to the case 1. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity

2. religious belief Elements:
3. interest in the outcome of the case a. The person must be incapable of intelligently making known his
4. conviction of a crime, unless provided for by law (i.e., perjury) perception to others
b. His incapability must exist at the time of his production for examination
A. being a party to the case
o parties to the case may testify without restriction Rulings:
o the relationship of a witness with a party does not ipso facto render him a
biased witness in criminal and civil cases Insanity Imbecility Deaf mute Under the influence
o bias is not even a basis for declaring a witness incompetent to testify of alcohol/ drugs/
hypnotism
B. Religious belief (a) complete Marked by Not by mere reason Affects competence
o a witness is not disqualified because he does not believe in God or in a deprivation of deficiency in mental of being deaf-mute if it affects the
future retribution or punishment intelligence; and (b) capacity that one is already mental capacity of
complete deprivation incompetent as a the witness at the
C. persons pecuniarily Interested of volition witness time of the taking
o a person interested in the outcome of the suit is allowed to testify the same testimony
as a disinterested person, but the adverse party may show by cross- Note however that
examination the extent of that interest as affecting the credibility of the courts had not
witnesses yet take judicial
notice of the effects
D. Conviction for a crime of hypnotism
o Formerly, a person convicted of perjury was disqualified from testifying in
court as a part of his penalty. However, when the RPC was amended, the
said penalty was removed. Hence, a person convicted of perjury may
testify 2. Disqualification by reason of immaturity
o The fact that the witness has been convicted of a felony is a Elements:
a. the mental maturity of the witness must render him incapable of
circumstance to be taken into consideration as affecting his character
perceiving the facts respecting which he is examined
and credibility
b. he is incapable of relating his perception truthfully
Disqualifications of Witnesses
A child witness 2. People vs. Balanon – 233 S 679- MEDRANO
o is any person who, at the time of giving testimony, is below the age of eighteen (18)
AM NO. 004-07 (Rule on Examination of Child Witness:

o presumes that ever child a is presumed qualified to be a witness
o to rebut this, the burden of proof lies with the party challenging the child’s
competence
1. People vs. Taneo – 218 S 494- BALDEO

3. People vs. Baid – 336 S 656- PASCUAL 4. People vs Lolito Honor – 584 S 547- SALTERAS

5. People vs Solomon Dioneda – 587 S 312- ARANETA inaccuracies in their narration of events. Trivial inconsistencies and inconsequential
discrepancies on minor details in the testimonies of witness do not impair their credibility.
Facts:
1. Appellant Dioneda was charged with the crime of rape of a minor, 6 years of age, They could, in fact, be badges of truth for they manifest spontaneity and erase any
named in the case as AAA. suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.
2. During the trial of the case, it was established that:
a. AAA, on August 27, 2000, went to the 3- storey house of their neighbor As long as the inconsistencies are immaterial or irrelevant to the elements of the crime and do
Ruth Dajao to play with latter’s child named Iking in Novaliches, Quezon not touch on material facts crucial to the guilt or innocence of the accused as in the present
City. case, these are not valid grounds to reverse a conviction.
b. Upon reaching the first floor of the house, AAA met Dioneda, 17 y/o who
was the helper of the Dajao family.
c. AAA then proceeded to the third floor of the house and discovered that In the present case, The place where AAA met appellant when she was about to leave the
Iking was already asleep. Hence, she decided to just go home. Dajao residence, whether on the ground or second floor is a trivial matter.
Take note of this difference, because this is the issue:
During the direct examination, AAA stated that when she went down
the house and reached the first floor, Dioneda prevented her and forced her
to return to the second floor.
However, during the cross examination, AAA stated that she met
Dioneda in the 2nd floor and that is where she was prevented from going
home.
d. nonetheless, AAA was brought by Dioneda to the 2nd floor bed room into
his double-deck bed and there he had carnal knowledge of her.
e. She went home crying and told her mother that her vagina was aching and
that “kuya jong” referring to Dioneda, did something to her.
3. The RTC rendered a decision finding the appellant Dioneda guilty of rape as
charged but his minority during the time of the rape mitigated the penalty.
a. The RTC gave full credence to the testimony of AAA and the Expert
witnesses.
4. The CA upheld the conviction of the accused Dioneda.
5. Hence, the present action by Dioneda arguing that the both lower courts erred in
giving full credence to the testimony of AAA considering that there were
inconsistencies in her statements as to her account of the events prior to the
rape, specifically, as to the floor where she was prevented to go down (kung sa
1st floor or sa second floor).
Issue: Should the testimony of AAA still be considered in view of the inconsistency
between the statements as alleged by the accused Dioneda?
Ruling: Yes. The place where AAA met appellant when she was about to leave the Dajao
residence, whether on the ground or second floor is a trivial matter. AAA, a child of tender
age, could not be expected to give a perfect recollection of the exact floor of the house where
she met appellant.
Ratio: the inconsistencies were immaterial and inconsequential and do not affect the
credibility of the witness. Forthright witnesses are not immune from committing minor
RULE 130 SECTION 22 – DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE a. hence, it does not cover illicit cohabitation
b. but it does cover spouses who were estranged as separation de facto does
Marital Disqualification Rule not sever marital relations
3. that the case is not one against the other
Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. — During their marriage, neither the
husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected
spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime Requisites in order for the Privilege under Section 24 (a) be applied:
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. 1. there must be a valid marriage between the husband and the wife
2. there is a communication received in confidence by one form the other (clearly, not
There are two types of incompetency by reason of marital relations under this rule but of and with third persons);
must be differentiated as different rules apply: 3. the confidential communication was received during the marriage
Incompetency to testify as to anti-marital Incompetency to testify as to matters

facts (Anti marital privilege or Spousal concerning marital confidential Rationale
Immunity) communications between husband and o there is identity of interests between the spouses
wife (confidential communication) o hence, in the case of Alvarez vs Ramirez where the wife filed a case for
Section 22. Disqualification by reason of Section 24. Disqualification by arson against her estranged husband for 6 months, the SC allowed the
marriage. — During their marriage, neither reason of privileged communication. — The testimony of the wife ruling that the fact that the marital and domestic
the husband nor the wife may testify for or following persons cannot testify as to matters relations between her and the husband has become so strained that there is
against the other without the consent of the learned in confidence in the following cases: no more harmony, peace, and tranquility to be preserved. Hence, identity
affected spouse, except in a civil case by one (a)The husband or the wife, during or after of the interests of the spouses are no longer existing (Note however that
against the other, or in a criminal case for a the marriage, cannot be examined without the this is an exception and still a case when filed by one against the other)
crime committed by one against the other or consent of the other as to any communication o that there is consequent danger of perjury
the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. received in confidence by one from the other o policy of the law which deems it necessary to guard the security and confidence of
during the marriage except in a civil case by private life even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and which rejects such
one against the other, or in a criminal case for evidence because its admission would lead to domestic disunion and unhappiness
a crime committed by one against the other or o because where a want of domestic tranquility exists, there is danger of punishing one
the latter's direct descendants or ascendants; spouse through the hostile testimony of the other
Applicable only when one of the spouses is a applicable even if any of the spouses are not a
party to the case party to the case
Refers to adverse or favourable marital refers to marital communications only; EXCEPTION TO THE MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE:
testimony in general (e.g. testify as to what what is prohibited is the testifying as to the o in the following circumstances, the spouse may testify for or against the other
the spouse saw etc.) and may also cover privileged communications made between the spouse:
testimonies involving marital spouses a. in a civil case against each other
communication; what is prohibited is the b. in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other, or the
mere act of testifying for or against the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants
spouse o note, the injury need not amount to a physical wrong upon the
Exists only during marriage Continues even after the dissolution of the person. When the offense directly attacks or directly and vitally
marriage impairs the conjugal relations, it comes within the exception to
Tenor of Section 22 does not distinguish as to that the communication was done during the the statute (Ordoño vs Daquigan)
when the information subject of the marriage o the disqualification also applies where the spouse is a co-accused
testimony was acquired and may refer to
information acquired prior to or during the 1. Ordoño vs. Daquigan – 62 S 270
marriage
Facts:
Requisites in order for the Marital Privilege under Section 22 be applied: 1. Avelino Ordono was charged in the MTC of San Gabriel La Union for having raped
1. that the spouse for or against whom the testimony of the other is offered, is a party his daughter Leonora.
to the case
2. that the spouses are legally married

2. In support of the complaint of Leonora, Catalina, the wife of Avelino, executed a private life which the law aims at protecting will be nothing but ideals which, through
sworn statement wherein she disclosed that on that same date, Leonora apprised her their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home"
of the rape, but she made no denunciation because they were threatened
a. She also stated that during the investigation, she also mentioned the rape
Avelino did to their other daughter, Rosa
3. The defense counsel then objected to the competency of Catalina as a witness. 2. People vs. Castañeda Jr. – 88 S 562
He invoked marital disqualification found in the ROC wherein the spouses cannot
testify for or against each other without each other’s consent, except in a civil case Facts:
by one against the other or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one 1. Victoria Manaloto filed a criminal complaint against her husband, Benjamin
against the other. Manaloto, before the CFI of Pampnga, with the crime of Falsification of Public
a. He stated that Avelino did not consent to the testifying of Catalina against Document. She alleged that:
him a. Benjamin forged her signature in the Deed of Sale of house and lot
belonging to the conjugal partnership and making it appear as though she
consented to the sale.
Issue: whether the rape committed by the husband against his daughter is a crime 2. At the trial, the prosecution called the complainant-wife to the witness stand.
committed by him against his wife within the meaning of the exception found in the 3. However, the defense moved to disqualify her a witness invoking the rules of court
marital disqualification rule. which provides the disqualification of a spouse to be examined without the other
spouse’s consent, except when the case is a civil case by one against the other or
Controlling issue: Should the phrase "in a criminal case for a crime committed by one in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other.
against the other" be restricted to crimes committed by one spouse against the other, 4. Decision of the trial court judge: the trial court judge granted the motion
such as physical injuries, bigamy, adultery or concubinage, or should it be given a disqualifying the wife Victoria from testifying against her husband without the
latitudinarian interpretation as referring to any offense causing marital discord? latter’s consent.
5. The motion for reconsideration by the People, having been denied, they filed
Ruling: the present case comes within the exception provided for by the rules. hence, the the present action questioning the decision of the judge.
testimonial disqualification by reason of Marital relations will not apply in the present case.
Issue: was the trial court correct in disqualifying Victoria, wife of the accused, to testify
The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the person is too narrow; and against her husband in the Falsification case filed by her?
the rule that any offense remotely or indirectly affecting domestic harmony comes within the
exception is too broad. The better rule is that, when an offense directly attack or directly Ruling: NO, the trial court erred in disqualifying her as a witness because the crime of
and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the statute that Falsification of Public Document that she filed against her husband may be considered as a
one shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime criminal case for a crime committed by a husband against his wife and, therefore, an exception
committed (by) one against the other. to the rule on marital disqualification.
Ratio and explanation as to what may fall under the exceptions of Marital
Thus, in this case, the rape of the daughter by the father is an undeniably abominable and Disqualification:
revolting crime with incestuous implications andpositively undermines the connubial
relationship, is a proposition too obvious to require much elucidation. The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the is too narrow; and the rule
that any offense remotely or indirectly affecting domestic within the exception is too broad.
The better rule is that, WHEN AN OFFENSE DIRECTLY ATTACKS, OR DIRECTLY AND
VITALLY IMPAIRS, THE CONJUGAL RELATION, IT COMES WITHIN THE
As an exception, that the civil case or criminal case is one not against the other, EXCEPTION to the statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a
therefore, although the marital relations exists, one of the spouses may still testify for or criminal prosecution for a crime committed (by) one against the other.
against the other without the other spouse’s consent if:
There is a dictum that "where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that In the present case, The act complained of as constituting the crime of Falsification of Public
there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be Document is the forgery by the accused of his wife's signature in a deed of sale, thereby
disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case making it appear therein that said wife consented to the sale of a house and lot belonging to
identity of interests disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that their conjugal partnership when in fact and in truth she did not. It must be noted that had the
identity is nonexistent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences of sale of the said house and lot, and the signing of the wife's name by her husband in the deed of
sale, been made with the consent of the wife, no crime could have been charged against said
husband Clearly, therefore, it is the husband's breach of his wife's confidence which gave rise
to the offense charged. And it is this same breach of trust which prompted the wife to make the
necessary complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal which, accordingly, filed the
aforesaid criminal case with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. To rule, therefore, that
such criminal case is not one for a crime committed by one spouse against the other is to
advance a conclusion which completely disregards the factual antecedents of the instant case.
With more reason must the exception apply to the instant case where the victim of the
crime and the person who stands to be directly prejudiced by the falsification is not a
third person but the wife herself. And it is undeniable that the act comp of had the effect of
directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation. This is apparent not only in the act Of the
wife in personally lodging her complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, but also in
her insistent efforts in connection with the instant petition, which seeks to set aside the order
disqualified her from testifying against her husband.

RULE 130 SECTION 23 – DEAD MAN STATUTE RULE  temporal element: hence, if the subject of the testimony is
something that which transpired after the death or the time when the
Section 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. — Parties or person became insane, may be allowed by the court
assignor of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an  topical element: testimony in favour of the estate of the deceased or
executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a insane person is not precluded altogether; subject on the basis of his
person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased knowledge of other subjects and not about the transaction or dealing
person or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact with the dead or insane person
occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of
unsound mind.
Elements: Reason for the rule:

1. the defendant in the case is the executor or administrator or representative of  if death has closed the lips of one party, the policy of the law is to close the lips of
the deceased or the person unsound mind; the other, and that the temptation to falsehood and concealment in such cases is
 plaintiff of the case is the person who has a claim against the estate of considered too great to allow the surviving party to testify in his own behalf
decedent or of the insane person  intends to protect the representatives of the deceased person when sued in such
 defendant is the representative—administrator or executor (may even capacity or a person of unsound mind on a claim against the estate of the decedent or
extend to the heirs themselves (Go Chi Gum vs Go Cho)—of the a claim against the insane person
decedent or the insane person; the party entitled to invoke protection  comment: there is a question on the justness of the rule because it ignores the rights
of the Dead Man’s Statute of those who may have legitimate claims against the decedent’s or insane person’s
 it also does not matter if the person died or became insane estate
subsequently to the institution of the case as fact of death or insanity  nevertheless, the plaintiff is not completely bereft of any remedy: he may
remains present other witnesses and other forms of evidence
o hence, The Dead Man’s Statute may be waived

o if it is the administrator or the executor who filed a suit against another, By:
the defendant may be a witness against the decedent (a) failing to object to the testimony
o the protection of the dead man’s statute is also removed when the (b) cross examining the witness on the prohibited testimony
administrator sets up a counterclaim and the plaintiff is allowed to testify (c) offering evidence to rebut the testimony
as to occurrences to defeat the counterclaim (in the counterclaim, the
representative becomes the plaintiff)
1. Razon vs. IAC – 207 S 234
2. the suit is a civil action or special proceedings upon a claim by the plaintiff Facts:
against the estate of the deceased person or person of unsound mind 1. Vicente Chuidian, the administrator of the estate of decedent Juan T. Chuidian, filed
 what is contemplated is a suit against the estate, its administrator or an action against the defendants Razon for them to be ordered to deliver certificates
executor, but not when the administrator or executor files an action of stocks representing the shareholding of the Juan T. Chuidian.
against another’s estate 2. It was the defense of Razon that during Juan’s lifetime, they have agreed that Juan
 necessarily therefore, the action is civil and not criminal because it is will be one of the nominal shareholders of the corporation considering that the
a claim against the estate original incorporators started to withdraw from the corporation.
a. Furthermore, they argue that it was Razon who actually paid for the
3. the witness is the plaintiff in whose behalf the case is prosecuted; and shares, hence, he has the possession of the certificates of stock to show
 hence, if the witness being called for the prosecution is a third person, signify his ownership. However, this was not registered in the books of the
present rule will not apply corporation.
 intended exclusively for the plaintiff, the assignors of the case, or 3. The RTC of Manila rendered a decision declaring Razon as the owner of the stocks
persons whose behalf the case is prosecuted subject of the case and dismissed the complaint of administrator Chuidian.
4. the subject of the testimony is as to any matter of fact occurring before the 4. However, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC and ruled in favour of Chuidian.
death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind It applied the Deadman’s Statute against Razon.
(and adverse) 5. Hence, the present action by the petitioner Razon assailing the appellate court's
 prohibited matters: are those occurring in the presence or within the decision on its alleged misapplication of the dead man's statute rule under Section
hearing of the decedent/ insane person 20(a) Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. According to him, the "dead man's statute"

rule is not applicable to the instant case. Moreover, the private respondent, as The petitioner's testimony was subject to cross examination by the private
plaintiff in the case did not object to his oral testimony regarding the oral agreement respondent's counsel. Hence, granting that the petitioner's testimony is within the
between him and the deceased Juan T. Chuidian that the ownership of the shares of prohibition of Section 20(a), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the private respondent
stock was actually vested in the petitioner unless the deceased opted to pay the is deemed to have waived the rule.
same; and that the petitioner was subjected to a rigid cross examination regarding
such testimony.
Nevertheless, the SC upheld the decision of the CA because Razon failed to register the
transaction between Juan and him in the records of the corporation. Hence, the alleged
Issue: Is petitioner Razon barred by the Dead man’s statute? transfer of shares is not binding.
Ruling: No.
Section 20(a) Rule 130 of the Rules of Court (Section 23 of the Revised Rules on Evidence)
States:
Sec. 20. Disqualification by reason of interest or relationship — The following persons cannot
testify as to matters in which they are interested directly or indirectly, as herein enumerated.
(a) Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a
deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand
against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind,
cannot testify as to any matter of fact accruing before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of unsound mind."
Limitation on the application of the Rule:

The rule, however, delimits the prohibition it contemplates in that it is applicable to a case
against the administrator or its representative of an estate upon a claim against the
estate of the deceased person.
in the present case, the case is filed by the administrator of the estate of the decedent, not
against the decedent’s estate.
The testimony excluded by the appellate court is that of the defendant (petitioner
herein) to the affect that the late Juan Chuidian, (the father of private respondent
Vicente Chuidian, the administrator of the estate of Juan Chuidian) and the
defendant agreed in the lifetime of Juan Chuidian that the 1,500 shares of stock in E.
Razon, Inc. are actually owned by the defendant unless the deceased Juan Chuidian
opted to pay the same which never happened. The case was filed by the
administrator of the estate of the late Juan Chuidian to recover shares of stock in E.
Razon, Inc. allegedly owned by the late Juan T. Chuidian.
It is clear, therefore, that the testimony of the petitioner is not within the prohibition
of the rule. The case was not filed against the administrator of the estate, nor was it
filed upon claims against the estate.
Secondly, the plaintiff is deemed to have waived his objections to the testimonies made by
Razon.
The records show that the private respondent never objected to the testimony of the
petitioner as regards the true nature of his transaction with the late elder Chuidian.
RULE 130 SECTION 24 – DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED  the protection of the privilege does not apply when the communications is
COMMUNICATION made in the presence of third persons
 overhearing accidentally, unintended, unknown by the spouses, through a
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The voice carrying device- the third person may be examined
following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following  to commit conversation to a third person to be transmitted to his wife destroys
cases: the protection already
 communication intended for third persons although transmitted through the
(1) husband and wife wife is not privileged so far as it was to be told to others
(2) attorney-client
(3) physician-patient
(4) priest/ minister-penitent Waiver of the privilege
 Who has the right to invoke this privilege? The spouse who communicated the
Object of the Rule: privileged communication to the other spouse, the addressee of the
 communications originate in confidence, the confidence is essential to the relation; communication
the relation is a proper object of encouragement by the law and the injury that would  The addressee of the communication is not entitled to object, unless his silence is
injure it by disclosure is probably greater than the benefit that would result in the considered or treated as an assent and an adoption of the statement, which this
judicial investigation of the truth makes it doubly a communication and doubly privilege
 the purpose is to insure subjectively the free and unrestrained privacy of
communication, divested of any apprehension of compulsory nature
 and if the communication is not intended to be a private one, the privilege has not (b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any
application to it communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with
a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be
examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the
A. Husband-Wife knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other B. attorney-client relationship
during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a
crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants; (b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or
Object: with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer,
 secure domestic happiness by placing the protecting seal of the law upon all or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any
communication between husband and wife; and whatever has come to the fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;
knowledge of either by means of hollowed confidence which the relation inspires
 protection of freedom of private communication; prevent compulsion for each one to
share what one knows with the other and this has nothing to do with the duty of Wigmore’s statement of the rule:
fidelity that each owes to the other 1. where legal adcise of any kind is sought
2. from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such,
3. the communication relating to that purpose
Elements 4. made in confidence
1. there must be a valid marriage between the husband and the wife 5. by the client
2. there is a communication received in confidence by one from the other 6. are at his instance permanently protected
 it is proper that all marital communications be presumed as confidential unless 7. from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser
the contrary appears 8. except that the protection may be waived
3. the confidential communication was received during marriage
4. that the action where the privilege is claimed is not by one against the other Requisites:
1. there must be a communication made by the client or the attorney, or an advice
given by the attorney to the client
Effect of third persons: 2. the communication or advice must be given in the course of the professional
employment or with the view to professional employment

Objective:
 in order to promote freedom of consultation of legal advisers by clients, the 1. US vs. Antipolo – 37 P 726
apprehension of compelled disclosure by the legal adviser must be removed FACTS:
 if the communications made to legal advisers were not protected, no one would date 1. The appellant was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of the Province of
to consult a legal adviser nor could any one safely come into court if he should have Batangas, charged with the murder of one Fortunato Dinal.
sought his advise 2. The trial court convicted him of homicide and from that decision he was appealed.
3. One of the errors assigned is based upon the refusal of the trial judge to permit
“with the view of professional employment” Susana Ezpeleta, the widow of the man whom the appellant is accused of having
 it is not necessary that there be a perfected relationship to exist, but the advise was murdered, to testify as a witness on behalf of the defense concerning certain alleged
nevertheless sought in such view dying declarations.
 extended to communications even if later on, the lawyer declines to handle the case
or no actual professional employment followed 4. The witness was called to the stand and having stated that she is the widow of
 payment of fee is not even essential Fortunato Dinal was asked: "On what occasion did your husband die?" To this
 it may also extend to cases where the client reasonable believes that the person question the fiscal objected upon the following ground:
consulted is a lawyer, although in fact he is not as he is merely pretending to be one
“I object to the testimony of this witness. She has just testified
that she is the widow of the deceased, Fortunato Dinal, and that being so I
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, believe that she is not competent to testify under the rules and procedure in
without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or either civil or criminal cases, unless it be with the consent of her husband,
any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional and as he is dead and cannot grant that permission, it follows that this
capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in capacity, and which would witness is disqualified from testifying in this case in which her husband is
blacken the reputation of the patient; the injured party.”
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be
examined as to any confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional 5. Counsel for defendant insisted that the witness was competent, arguing that the
character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest disqualification which the fiscal evidently had in mind relates only to cases in which
belongs; a husband or wife of one of the parties to a proceeding is called to testify; that the
parties to the prosecution of a criminal case are the Government and the accused;
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to that, furthermore the marriage of Dinal to the witness having been dissolved by the
communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public death of her husband, she is no longer his wife, and therefore not subject to any
interest would suffer by the disclosure. disqualification arising from the status of marriage.
ISSUE/S: WON the wife of the deceased (Susana) is allowed to be a witness.

HELD: YES. The wife is allowed to be a witness. Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication
RATIO: The great object of the rule is to secure domestic happiness by placing the protecting
seal of the law upon all confidential communications between husband and wife; and whatever
has come to the knowledge of either by means of the hallowed confidence which that relation
inspires, cannot be afterwards divulged in testimony even though the other party be no longer
living.
This case does not fall with the text of the statute or the reason upon which it is based. The
purpose of section 58 is to protect accused persons against statements made in the confidence
engendered by the marital relation, and to relieve the husband or wife to whom such
confidential communications might have been made from the obligation of revealing them to
the prejudice of the other spouse. Obviously, when a person at the point of death as a result of
injuries he has suffered makes a statement regarding the manner in which he received those
injuries, the communication so made is in no sense confidential. On the contrary, such a
communication is made for the express purpose that it may be communicated after the death of
the declarant to the authorities concerned in inquiring into the cause of his death.
On grounds of public policy the wife cannot testify against her husband as to what came to her 8. The CA upheld the decision of the RTC Judge in allowing the testimony of the
from him confidentially or by reason of the marriage relation, but this rule does not apply to a Dra. Acampado when the petitioner filed before the said court a petition for
dying communication made by the husband to the wife on the trial of the one who killed him. certiorari and prohibition to nullify the order denying the motion to exclude Dra.
The declaration of the deceased made in extremes in such cases is a thing to be proven, and Acampado. It stated that:
this proof may be made by any competent witness who heard the statement. The wife may a. First, the petitioner failed to establish the confidential nature of the
testify for the state in cases of this character as to any other fact known to her. . . . It cannot be testimony of Dra. Acampado
contended that the dying declaration testified to by the witness was a confidential b. Secondly, the statements that Dra. Acampado gave do not fall within the
communication made to her; on the contrary, it was evidently made in the furtherance of realm of privileged communication because the information she disclosed
justice for the express purpose that it should be testified to in the prosecution of the defendant. were not obtained from the patient while attending her in her professional
capacity and neither where the information necessary to enable the
physicial to prescribe or give treatment of the patient Nelly Lim. And
neither does the information obtained from the physician tend to blacken
2. Nelly Lim vs. CA, Judge Victorio of RTC of Pangasinan, and Juan the character of the patient or bring disgrace to her or invite reproach.
Lim – 214 S 273 9. Hence, the present action by the petitioner Nelly Lim.
Facts: Issue: Is Dra. Acampado, the attending psychiatrist of the petitioner, be a witness in the
1. petitioner Nelly Lim and Juan Lim were lawfully married to each other. present case of annulment?
2. petition for annulment: the Juan Lim then filed a petition for annulment Controlling Issue: is she barred by the privileged communication rule?
of their marriage on the ground that his wife, the petitioner, was suffering
from schizophrenia “before, during, and after the celevration of the Ruling: Dra. Acampado is not disqualified from testifying because she testified as an expert
marriage, and until the present” witness and the information she disclosed did not fall within the privileged communication
3. the expert witness: during the trial, the private respondent presented 3 rule.
witnesses, among them was Dra. Acampado who is a Medical Specialist
II and in-charge of the Female Service of the National Center for Mental Ratio:
Health a fellow of the Philippine Psychiatrist Association and a Diplomate
of the Philippine Board of Psychiatrists. She was summoned as an expert The Law, Rules of Court, Rule 130:
witness. However, she also happened to be the attending psychiatrist
of the petitioner Nelly Lim. "SECTION 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The following
4. Motion to quash subpoena and suspend proceedings: the counsel of the persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
petitioner then filed a motion to quash subpoena to be issued for Dra.
Acampado so that she may not be allowed to appear as a witness in court. (c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil
5. During the hearing for the motion: case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment
a. Argument of the petitioner: Dra. Acampado is barred from given by him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such
testifying under the rule on the confidentiality of a physician- patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to
patient relationship act in that capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the
b. Argument of respondent: Dra. Acampado is appearing as an patient."
expert witness and would not be testifying on any information
acquired while attending to her patient Nelly Lim in her
professional capacity. The object of the law: intended to facilitate and make safe full and confidential disclosure by
6. Denial of the motion by the RTC Judge: the trial court judge denied the the patient to the physician of all facts, circumstances and symptoms, untrammeled by
motion and stated in his order that: “the respondent’s motion [is denied] apprehension of their subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on the witness stand,
and forthwith allowed Dr. Acampado to testify. However, the Court to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion, and be enabled safely and
advised counsel for respondent to interpose his objection once it becomes efficaciously to treat his patient
apparent that the testimony sought to be elicited is covered by the
privileged communication rule. Therefore, in order that this privilege be invoked successfully, the following requisites
7. Dra. Acampado then took the witness stand and it was established by the RTC must concur:
and the CA that Dra. Acampado was qualified by counsel for private
respondent as an expert witness and was asked hypothetical questions related 1. the privilege is claimed in a civil case;
to her field of expertise. She neither revealed the illness she examined and 2. the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice
treated the petitioner for nor disclosed the results of her examination and the medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
medicines she had prescribed.
3. such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his Ma. Paz underwent psychological testing purportedly in an effort to ease the marital strain.
professional capacity; The effort however proved futile. In 1973, they finally separated in fact.
4. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; andthe In 1975, Edgar was able to secure a copy of the confidential psychiatric report on Ma. Paz
information was confidential, and, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation prepared and signed by Drs. Cornelio Banaag, Jr., and Baltazar Reyes.
(formerly character) of the patient." On 2 November 1978, presenting the report among others, he obtained a decree
("Conclusion") from the Tribunal Metropolitanum Matrimoniale in Manila nullifying his
In relation to requisite no. 1, what are the requisites in order to be considered as a church marriage with Ma. Paz on the ground of "incapacitas assumendi onera conjugalia due
privileged communication? to lack of due discretion existent at the time of the wedding and thereafter." The decree was
1. The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed. confirmed and pronounced "Final and Definite."
2. This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory Meanwhile, on 30 July 1982, the then RTC issued an order granting the voluntary dissolution
maintenance of the relation between the parties. of the conjugal partnership.
3. The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be On 23 October 1990, Edgar filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage with Ma. Paz
sedulously fostered before the trial court. In his petition, he cited the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report
4. The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications which Ma. Paz merely denied in her Answer as "either unfounded or irrelevant."
must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of litigation At the hearing, Edgar took the witness stand and tried to testify on the contents of the
Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report.
In the present case, the said requisites were not complied with. -This was objected to on the ground that it violated the rule on privileged
communication between physician and patient.
Firstly, Dra. Acampado was presented and qualified as an expert witness. As correctly held by Subsequently, Ma. Paz filed a Manifestation expressing her "continuing objection" to any
the Court of Appeals, she did not disclose anything obtained in the course of her examination, evidence, oral or documentary, "that would thwart the physician-patient privileged
interview and treatment of the petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions alleged in the communication rule," and thereafter submitted a Statement for the Record asserting among
hypothetical problem did not refer to and had no bearing on whatever information or findings others that "there is no factual or legal basis whatsoever for petitioner (Edgar) to claim
the doctor obtained while attending to the patient. 'psychological incapacity' to annul their marriage, such ground being completely false,
fabricated and merely an afterthought." 6 Before leaving for Spain where she has since resided
Secondly, it is quite clear from Dr. Acampado’s testimony that the petitioner was never after their separation, Ma. Paz also authorized and instructed her counsel to oppose the suit
interviewed alone. Nelly would go together with his father, Dr. Lim. There is authority to the and pursue her counterclaim even during her absence.
effect that information elicited during consultation with a physician in the presence of third Edgar opposed Ma. Paz' motion to disallow the introduction of the confidential psychiatric
parties removes such information from the mantle of the privilege. report as evidence, and afterwards moved to strike out Ma. Paz' Statement for the Record.
The RTC issued an Order admitting the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report in
Thirdly, nothing specific or concrete was offered by the petitioner to show that indeed, the evidence. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
information obtained from Dr. Acampado would blacken the former’s "character" (or Petitioner’s claim: Petitioner now seeks to enjoin the presentation and disclosure of the
"reputation"). Dr. Acampado never disclosed any information obtained from the petitioner contents of the psychiatric report and prays for the admission of her Statement for the Record
regarding the latter’s ailment and the treatment recommended therefor. to form part of the records of the case. She argues that since Sec. 24, par. (c), Rule 130, of the
Rules of Court 11 prohibits a physician from testifying on matters which he may have
Lastly, it would appear that the counsel made no objections to the questions asked to Dra. acquired in attending to a patient in a professional capacity, "WITH MORE REASON should
Acampado on that ground that it elicited an answer what would violate the privilege, despite be third person (like respondent-husband in this particular instance) be PROHIBITED from
the trial court’s advise that the said counsel may interpose his objection to the testimony "once testifying on privileged matters between a physician and patient or from submitting any
it becomes apparent that the testimony, sought to be elicited is covered by the privileged medical report, findings or evaluation prepared by a physician which the latter has acquired as
communication rule. Since the object of the privilege is to protect the patient, it may be a result of his confidential and privileged relation with a patient."
waived if no timely objection is made to the physician’s testimony. Respondent’s defense: The rules are very explicit: the prohibition applies only to a physician.
Thus . . . the legal prohibition to testify is not applicable to the case at bar where the person
sought to be barred from testifying on the privileged communication is the husband and not
3. Krohn vs. CA – 233 S 146 the physician of the petitioner."
ISSUE/S: WON the husband can be enjoined to disclose the contents of the psychiatric report
KROHN v. CA (1994) on the ground that it violated the rule on privileged communication between physician and
FACTS: patient.
On 14 June 1964, Edgar Krohn, Jr., and Ma. Paz Fernandez were married at the Saint Vincent
de Paul Church in San Marcelino, Manila. The union produced three children. Their blessings HELD: No.
notwithstanding, the relationship between the couple developed into a stormy one. In 1971,

RATIO: Petitioner's discourse while exhaustive is however misplaced. Lim v. Court of 3. Following up on his first memo and alleging that petitioner misappropriated P1,605
Appeals clearly lays down the requisites in order that the privilege may be successfully from his collections (through non-issuance of invoices to several customers) private
invoked: respondent Felix Galleron submitted a second Inter-office Memo addressed to the
(a) the privilege is claimed in a civil case; Regional Sales Manager:
(b) the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice  “In addition, I would like to further inform management that S/M Stanley
medicine, surgery or obstetrics; Fortich is an avid mahjong player and a cockfighting enthusiast. Inspite of
(c) such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his several advices, there seems to be no change in his lifestyle. Also,
professional capacity; respondent had a similar case last September 11, 1978.”
(d) the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and, 4. After further investigation, petitioner was found guilty of misappropriating company
(e) the information was confidential and, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation (formerly funds. He was preventively suspended from his job and the said order also decreed
character) of the patient. his dismissal.
In the instant case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authorized 5. Claiming that the second memo was “willful, malicious and done in gross bad faith,”
to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics. He is simply the patient's husband who wishes to petitioner filed a complaint for damages arising from libel.
testify on a document executed by medical practitioners. Plainly and clearly, this does not fall 6. RTC: ruled in favor of petitioner.
within the claimed prohibition. Neither can his testimony be considered a circumvention of the 7. Private respondent appealed to the CA: that no actual malice existed or had been
prohibition because his testimony cannot have the force and effect of the testimony of the shown in respect to the second memo and that in any case, the assailed letter was
physician who examined the patient and executed the report. protected by the privileged communication rule.
Counsel for petitioner indulged heavily in objecting to the testimony of private respondent on 8. CA: reversed the TC. The memo was not libelous being within the ambit of
the ground that it was privileged. In his Manifestation before the trial court dated 10 May privileged communications
1991, he invoked the rule on privileged communications but never questioned the testimony as
hearsay. It was a fatal mistake. For, in failing to object to the testimony on the ground that it ISSUES: WON Galleron’s second memo is libelous. WON Galleron’s second memo falls
was hearsay, counsel waived his right to make such objection and, consequently, the evidence within the ambit of privileged communications.
offered may be admitted.
RULING:
The second memo was not libelous in the absence of the key element of publicity.
 The right hand caption of the memorandum clearly shows the phrase “Interoffice
Memorandum,” implying confidentiality. Petitioner was unable to prove that the
letter was circulated or publicized, much less read by officers of the corporation
other than those involved in the investigation or those directly supervising the
petitioner’s work.
 Moreover, it was not proven that the issuance of the letter and its offending
paragraph was motivated by malice.
While the law presumes every defamatory imputation to be malicious, there are exceptions.
The case at bar falls under the settled exceptions to the rule: the private respondent’s inter-
office memorandum falls within the ambit of privileged communication rule.
4. Fortich vs. CA – 268 S 152 A privileged communication is one made bona fide upon any subject matter in which the party
communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty. In Mercado vs. CFI of
FORTICH vs. CA (1997) Rizal, the court explained that: “Even when the statements are found to be false, if there is
probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle
FACTS: of privilege may still cover the mistake of the individual. But the statements must be made
1. Petitioner Stanley Fortich was employed as an area salesman of soft drinks division under an honest sense of duty;”
of San Miguel Corp., a job which required him to collect various sums of money
from the retailers and buyers of the company along his designated route. In the instant case, the private respondent was, as the District Sales Supervisor in Dipolog
2. One day, petitioner received a Memo ordering him to stop plying his route and City, immediate supervisor of petitioner. In this capacity, respondent was charged with the
collecting sums owed by customers to the company because of “Non-issuance of duty to carry out and enforce company rules and policies, including the duty to undertake
either change refund nor official receipt for empties retrieved from outlets with initial investigation of possible irregularities in customer accounts in order to suggest further
temporary credit sales.” It likewise directed petitioner to instead report directly “to action which could be taken by the company. In fact, the communications initially submitted
the sales office every working day at the prescribed company time.” by the private respondent to his superiors prompted the investigation which eventually led to
petitioner’s preventive suspension and to the decision by the company’s proper officers to 7. Atty. Cajucom assisted Agustin during the said investigation and the stenographic
terminate the latter’s employment. reporter took down stenographic notes.
8. Agustin allegedly narrated his knowledge of the shooting and revealed identities of his
Even granting that the questioned memorandum contains statements which could be cohorts in the crime.
slanderous and therefore actionable were they not protected by the rule on privileged 9. The stenographic notes consisting of 22 pages was signed by Agustin. The same was
communications, still as no malice was shown, the Court agreed with the respondent court’s subsequently transcribed and later offered into evidence.
conclusion that the assailed memorandum report was an official act done in good faith, an 10. Before Quiano could be arraigned, he was able to escape. The consolidated cases
honest innocent statement arising from a moral and legal obligation which the private proceeded only against Agustin.
respondent certainly owed to the company in the performance of his duties. 11. Agustin impugned the validity of his extrajudicial statement for allegedly having been
given in violation of his Constitutional rights, alleging:
a) That he was a farmer whose highest educational attainment was grade 4;
b) That in the morning of his “arrest,” two armed men picked him up and taken to a car
2. Testimonial Privilege where two more armed men were waiting;
c) That along Kennon Road, he was made to kneel at gunpoint in order to admit his
Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No person may be compelled to testify involvement in the shooting, which he did out of fear;
against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. (20a) d) That he was brought to the City Fiscal of Baguio, where the armed men stayed with
him, which deterred him from telling the investigating fiscal that he was being
threatened;
RULE 130 SECTION 26 – ADMISSIONS OF A PARTY e) That Atty. Cajucom who supposedly assisted him and who was not his own choice,
only stayed with him for 2 minutes and interviewed him in English and Tagalog, but
not Ilocano, the dialect he understands;
3. Admissions and Confessions f) That he was told and promised by his captors that he would be discharged as state
witness if he cooperates, but the plan did not push through since Quiano escaped.
Section 26. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of a party as 12. Agustin’s wife corroborated his story.
to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. (22) 13. The Trial Court nevertheless admitted Agustin’s extrajudicial statement, and gave
scant consideration to his claim of force, intimidation and other irregularities. The TC
concluded that there was conspiracy and the accused was a direct participant in the crime,
that his “extrajudicial confession” shows that “he was in on the plan” and even “expected
1. People vs. Agustin – 240 S 541- PASCUAL to be paid” and that he “decided to give a statement only when he was not given money.”
14. TC convicted Agustin of murder.
PEOPLE vs. AGUSTIN (1995)
ISSUE: WON the extrajudicial “confession” is admissible. (N) If so, should he be acquitted?
FACTS: (Y)
1. In 5 separate informations, the accused were charged with murder in two cases, frustrated
murder in another, and attempted murder in two more cases. HELD: The extrajudicial statement is inadmissible in evidence because it was obtained in
2. The crimes were allegedly committed in Baguio City and resulted in the deaths of Dr. violation of Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution. Since it is the only evidence which
Bayquen and Anna Francisco, and the wounding of three others. links him to the crimes of which he was convicted, he must then be acquitted.
3. The informations in the murder cases charged the accused, Jaime Agustin, as having
acted in conspiracy with the alleged shooter, Wilfredo Quiano. RATIO: The extrajudicial ADMISSION — NOT extrajudicial confession — of the
4. Quiano allegedly confessed during the investigation conducted by the Baguio City fiscal appellant, which is the only evidence of the prosecution linking him to the commission of the
in his office, that he was the triggerman in the fatal shooting, but claims he was engaged crime charged, is wholly inadmissible because it was taken in violation of Section 12, Article
to kill Dr. Bayquen for a fee by a “bagman” and also named Freddie Cartel who provided III of the Constitution. We also see in these cases a blatant disregard of the appellant's right
him with the armalite. He also implicated a certain “Jimmy,” who turned out to be Jaime under Section 2 of Article III when he was unlawfully arrested.
Agustin, herein accused.
5. Quiano was assisted by Atty. Cajucom and a stenographic reporter who took down The SC pointed out that, contrary to the pronouncement of the trial court and the
stenographic notes of the proceedings. Her transcription became the sworn statement of characterization given by the appellant himself, the assailed extrajudicial statement is not
Quiano, which he signed. extrajudicial confession. It is only an extrajudicial admission.
6. On the basis of Quiano’s confession, Jaime Agustin was picked up by military personnel
in Pangasinan and brought to Baguio City where he was taken to the City Fiscal and In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt of the accused or of the criminal
investigated in connection with the said crime. intent to commit the offense with which he is charged. Wharton defines a confession as
follows:
o for not bringing up the warrantless arrest and pushing for Agustin’s
A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, immediate release; it was very apparent that such was the case (the
of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement by the accused, shooting having been 5 months prior to the arrest).
direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue, and tending, in connection with  Agustin was arrested 5 months after the shooting, there should have been a warrant
proof of other facts, to prove his guilt. In other words, and admission is something of arrest.
less than a confession, and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance
which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction, and which tends only to
establish the ultimate fact of guilt.
Nothing in Agustin’s extrajudicial statement indicates that he expressly acknowledged his 2. Tuason vs. CA – 241 S 695- SALTERAS
guilt; he merely admitted some facts or circumstances which in themselves are
insufficient to authorize a conviction and which can only tend to establish the ultimate FACTS:
fact of guilt. 1. Private respondent Maria Victoria Lopez Tuason filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 149, Makati a petition for annulment or declaration of nullity of her marriage
Nevertheless, when what is involved is the issue of admissibly in evidence under Section 12, to petitioner Emilio R. Tuason.
Article III of the Constitution, the distinction is irrelevant because Paragraph 3 thereof 2. CONTENTION OF WFE: She alleged that petitioner was already psychologically
expressly refers to both confession and admission. Thus: incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations which became
manifest afterward and resulted in violent fights between husband and wife; that in
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof one of their fights, petitioner inflicted physical injuries on private respondent which
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. impelled her to file a criminal case for physical injuries against him; that petitioner
used prohibited drugs, was apprehended by the authorities and sentenced to a one-
The first two paragraphs of Section 12 read: year suspended penalty and has not been rehabilitated; that petitioner was a
womanizer, and in 1984, he left the conjugal home and cohabited with three women
Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall in succession, one of whom he presented to the public as his wife; that after he left
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and the conjugal dwelling, petitioner gave minimal support to the family and even
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the refused to pay for the tuition fees of their children compelling private respondent to
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived accept donations and dole-outs from her family and friends; that petitioner likewise
except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, became a spendthrift and abused his administration of the conjugal partnership by
threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used alienating some of their assets and incurring large obligations with banks, credit card
against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar companies and other financial institutions, without private respondents consent; that
forms of detention are prohibited. attempts at reconciliation were made but they all failed because of petitioners refusal
to reform. In addition to her prayer for annulment of marriage, private respondent
CONSIDERATIONS: prayed for powers of administration to save the conjugal properties from further
 Agustine was not fully and properly informed of his rights. dissipation
o He was not explicitly told of his right to have 3. CONTENTION OF HUSBAND: Petitioner answered denying the imputations
a competent and independent counsel of his choice. against him. As affirmative defense, he claimed that he and private respondent were
o He was not categorically informed that he could waive his rights to remain a normal married couple during the first ten years of their marriage and actually
silent and to counsel and that this waiver must be in writing and in the begot two children during this period; that it was only in 1982 that they began to
presence of his counsel. have serious personal differences when his wife did not accord the respect and
o He had, in fact, waived his right to remain silent by agreeing to be dignity due him as a husband but treated him like a persona non grata.
investigated. Yet, no written waiver of such right appears in the transcript 4. The wife presented four witnesses, namely, herself; Dr. Samuel Wiley, a Canon Law
and no other independent evidence was offered to prove its existence. expert and marriage counselor of both private respondent and petitioner; Ms. Adelita
 That there is doubt that Atty, Cajucom is “independent counsel” and his willingness Prieto, a close friend of the spouses, and Atty. Jose F. Racela IV, private respondents
to assist the accused is questionable: counsel. Private respondent likewise submitted documentary evidence consisting of
o he being an associate of the private prosecutor in that case; newspaper articles of her husband’s relationship with other women, his
o doubtful that Agustin even understood him when he was informed of his apprehension by the authorities for illegal possession of drugs; and copies of a prior
Constitutional Rights in English and Tagalog, when the dialect he church annulment decree. The parties’ marriage was clerically annulled by the
understood was Ilocano, nor were the same properly explained. Tribunal Metropolitanum Matrimoniale which was affirmed by the National
o it also appears that the lawyer made it seem to Agustin that he was a Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal in 1986.
witness rather than an accused.
5. RULING OF THE RTC: the trial court, on the ground of psychological incapacity, 2. During the pre-trial, as indicated in the pre-trial order, prosecution and defense
rendered judgment declaring the nullity of private respondent’s marriage to agreed to stipulate on the and make the markings of the following prosecution's
petitioner and awarding custody of the children to private respondent. exhibits: “The five (5) plastic bags with markings containing methamphetamine
6. RULING OF THE CA: affirmed the decision of the RTC.
hydrochloride with a total weight of 401 grams”.
7. Hence, the present petition. He argues that he was deprived of due process because
he was not given the opportunity to present his evidence. It is worth noting that the a. The parties also agreed that they dispense with the testimony of Forensic
reason why he was not able to present evidence is due to the fact that he was absent chemist Bravo and that the same need not testify in court. they admitted,
in the supposed hearings of the said annulment case. instead, as evidence the final report of the said chemist.
b. However, said pretrial order was not signed
ISSUE/S: WON respondent court erred in affirming the decision of the RTC. 3. During the trial, the prosecution provided as witnesses the policemen who did the
HELD: NO. The CA did not err in affirming the decision of the RTC.
RATIO: In the case at bar, the decision annulling petitioners marriage to private respondent buy-bust operation, as well the marked 5 transparent bags of shabu. On the other
had already become final and executory when petitioner failed to appeal during the hand, the defense was trying to establish that the buy bust operation set him up and
reglementary period. Petitioner however claims that the decision of the trial court was null and those confiscated plastic bags were all planted in his attaché case.
void for violation of his right to due process. He contends he was denied due process when, 4. Decision of the trial court: found as credible the witnesses of the prosecution and
after failing to appear on two scheduled hearings, the trial court deemed him to have waived convicted the accused. It also cited the Final Report of the Forensic Chemist Bravo
his right to present evidence and rendered judgment on the basis of the evidence for private that the packets of Shabu bought and tested from Chua was tested positive for
respondent. Petitioner justifies his absence at the hearings on the ground that he was then
metamphetamine hydrochloride.
confined for medical and/or rehabilitation reasons.
The failure of petitioners counsel to notify him on time of the adverse judgment to enable him 5. By reason of the penalty of the crime, the case was automatically elevated up to
to appeal therefrom is negligence which is not excusable. Notice sent to counsel of record is the Supreme Court.
binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse
judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment
valid and regular on its face. Among the arguments of Chua, he now contends that since the NBI Forensic Chemist did not
Petitioner also refutes the testimonies of private respondents witnesses, particularly Dr. testify, his findings that the specimens submitted to him were indeed shabu and weighed so
Samuel Wiley and Ms. Adelita Prieto, as biased, incredible and hearsay.Petitioner alleges that
much, did not longer have probative value.
if he were able to present his evidence, he could have testified that he was not psychologically
incapacitated at the time of the marriage as indicated by the fact that during their first ten  He also insists that he never waived the presentation of the chemist during the pre-
years, he and private respondent lived together with their children as one normal and happy trial and that they only stipulated that the said confiscated bags be marked as part of
family, that he continued supporting his family even after he left the conjugal dwelling and the prosecution’s evidence.
that his work as owner and operator of a radio and television corporation places him in the
public eye and makes him a good subject for malicious gossip linking him with various On the other hand, it is the argument of the OSG for the People that when the parties
women. These facts, according to petitioner, should disprove the ground for annulment of his
stipulated during the trial that the said plastic bags be marked as evidence for the
marriage to petitioner.
Suffice it to state that the finding of the trial court as to the existence or non-existence of prosecution, and that the chemist Bravo no longer be presented in court, such is
petitioners psychological incapacity at the time of the marriage is final and binding on considered as an admission of the findings of Bravo that those were indeed shabu and
us. Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the trial courts factual findings and evaluation of that the said plastic bags containing the shabu were the drugs that were confiscated from
the testimonies of private respondent’s witnesses vis-a-vis petitioners defenses are clearly and him.
manifestly erroneous.
Issue: did the act of stipulating during the pre-trial by the parties that the plastic bags be
marked as well the non-presentation of the chemist amount to admission of the findings of the
3. People vs. Chua Uy – 327 S 335- ARANETA said Chemist as well as the same being the actual evidence confiscated from him?
Facts: Ruling: No.
1. Chua was arrested in a buy bust operation by the elements of the Anti- Narcotics It may at once be noted that neither Chua nor his counsel made express admission that
Units of the Philippine National Police. He was charged with drug pushing and the contents of the plastic bags to "be marked" as contain methamphetamine
illegal possession of shabu. hydrochloride (shabu).

That Chua agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Bravo may not be 6. Inside the room, he threatened her with a knife and ordered her to remove her panty and lie
considered an admission of the findings of Bravo on the contents of the plastic bag. on the bed. Afraid, she did as ordered and the accused also removed his pants and brief. He
placed himself on top of her, spread her legs with his legs, inserted his penis inside her vagina
and had sexual intercourse with her at the same time embracing and kissing her. After he was
Even granting for the sake of argument that Chua admitted during the pre-trial that the exhibits
through, she ran towards the kitchen with Cepeda chasing her.
contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, the admission cannot be used in evidence against
him because the Joint Order was not signed by Chua and his counsel. 7. Regina Carba confirmed this narration of the complainant on the aspect that at [a]bout 3:00
o'clock in the afternoon of April 2, 1994, she was at Conchita's house to discuss the gift they
would give their neighbor who was getting married. Cepeda arrived and asked Conchita to
Section 4 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court expressly provides: Sec. 4. Pre-trial agreements
give his wife a massage as she was having stomach pains. Conchita had been a masseuse since
must be signed. No agreement or admission made or entered during the pre-trial conference 1979. On complainant's request, she accompanied her to Cepeda's house. Upon arrival, the
shall be used in evidence against the accused unless reduced to writing and signed and his accused told her to leave as his Muslim wife gets angry when there are plenty of people in
counsel. their house. Both she and Conchita protested but Cepeda insisted on it several times forcing
her to leave the house of the accused.
The purpose of this requirement is to further safeguard the rights of the accused against 8. CEPEDA’S DEFENSE: This charge is refuted by the accused claiming that he and
improvident or unauthorized agreements or admissions which his counsel may have entered Conchita are lovers. The complainant has gone to their house four times in February 1994.
into without his knowledge, as he may have waived his presence at the pretrial conference; The fifth time the complainant went to their house on March 6, he courted her by saying:
and eliminate any doubt on the conformity of the accused to the facts agreed upon. "Sing, I knew that you like me and I like you." Then they had sexual intercourse. The
next time Conchita came to see him and had sexual intercourse with him was on March
Nevertheless, the petition of the accused must be denied in light of the belated objection 13, then March 17, March 29 and March 27 when on this date, she asked him to leave his
wife to elope with her as she would also leave her husband. He rejected this proposal
made on the admission of Bravo’s final report and of the plastic bags containing the
because he loved his wife and Conchita had three daughters. Conchita, according to him, was
shabu. During the trial, the petitioner made no objections as to the admissibility of such displeased because he would not elope with her. On April 2, 1994, Conchita again came to
pieces of evidence and that the same was only raised during this appeal. his house and while they were petting, somebody outside his house said: "You there, what
are you doing? At this Conchita left his house and went home. At about 10:00 o'clock that
evening, he was arrested.
Petition denied. 9. RTC rendered judgment against accused Dante Cepeda.
ISSUE/S: WON Dante Cepeda is guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

4. People vs. Cepeda – 324 S 290- BALDEO
FACTS:
HELD: Yes.
1. Conchita Mahomoc claims that at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 2, 1994,
RATIO: Accused-appellant's allegation of an illicit amorous relationship is too shopworn to
Dante Cepeda went to her house at Buhang, Magallanes, Agusan del Norte, and asked her to
deserve serious consideration and is totally unworthy of credence. A circumspect scrutiny of
[go to] his house to massage (hilot) his wife who was suffering from stomach ache.
the record discloses that the 'illicit love affair' angle appears as a fabrication by accused-
2. Regina Carba, her neighbor, was in her house and she asked her to go with her. appellant. As an affirmative defense, the alleged 'love affair' needs convincing proof. Having
admitted to having had carnal knowledge of the complainant several times, accused-
3. Cepeda was at his kitchen door when they reached his house. He told Gina to leave as his appellant bears the burden of proving his defense by substantial evidence. The record
wife, who was Muslim, would get angry if there were many people in their home. He insisted shows that other than his self-serving assertions, there is no evidence to support the claim
on this many times so that Gina had to leave. that accused-appellant and private complainant were in love.
4. Cepeda led the complainant to his bedroom. At the door, Conchita peeped inside and saw a It must be noted that accused-appellant and private complainant are both married and are
figure covered by a blanket whom she presumed was Cepeda's wife. living together with their respective spouses. In this case, other than accused-appellant's self-
5. At that instance, accused immediately placed his left arm around her shoulders and pointed serving testimony, no other evidence like love letters, mementos or pictures were presented to
a knife at the pit of her stomach saying: "Just keep quiet, do not make any noise, otherwise I prove his alleged amorous relationship with private complainant. Neither was there any
will kill you." She elbowed him, stooped and shouted "Help!" three times but Cepeda covered corroborative testimony supporting this pretended illicit affair. If accused-appellant were
her mouth then carried her to the room by her armpits. Shaking herself free from his grasp, she really the paramour of private complainant, she would not have gone to the extent of bringing
hit her left shin at the edge of the floor of the bedroom. this criminal action which inevitably exposed her to humiliation of recounting in public the

violation of her womanhood. Moreover, she would not have implicated a person, who is Rule 130.
allegedly her lover, as the perpetrator of an abominable crime and thereby lay open their illicit
relationship to public shame and ridicule not to mention the ire of a cuckolded husband and Section 26. Admissions of a party- the act, declaration or omission of a party as to the
the withering contempt of her children were it not the truth. relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
Even assuming ex gratia argumenti that accused- appellant and private complainant
Admissions Confessions
were indeed sweethearts as he claims, this fact alone will not extricate him from his
A statement, or written, made by a party, In criminal cases, there is an
predicament. The mere assertion of a 'love relationship' would not necessarily rule out
or by someone for whom he is acknowledgment of guilt,
the use of force to consummate the crime. It must be stressed that in rape cases, the
responsible, as to the existence of a
gravamen of the offense is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without
relevant fact
her consent. Thus, granting arguendo that the accused and the victim were really lovers
Voluntary acknowledgment in express Statement that the accused engaged in
this Court has reiterated time and again that "[A] sweetheart cannot be forced to have
terms or implication, by a party in conduct which constituted the crime
sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee,
interest or by another by whose
worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust."
statement he is legally bound, against his
Succinctly stated, in rape the prosecution must rule out the victim's consent to the sexual act. interest or the existence o trust of a fact
In the case at bar, the testimony of private complainant was clear: she did not consent to penile in dispute material to the issue
invasion. Assuming for argument's sake that accused-appellant and private complainant Broader term Specific type of admission, referring
were sweethearts, rape was nevertheless committed because accused-appellant had sex only to an acknowledgment of guilt
with the victim by force and against her will. May be implied Always express and unequivocal
In itself is insufficient to authorize
As aptly pointed out in People v. Mendoza, a married woman with a husband and three (3)
conviction, and which tends only to
daughters would not , publicly admit that she had been criminally abused unless that was the
establish the ultimate fact of guilt
truth. Similarly, it defies reason in this case why a mother of four (4) would concoct a story of
defloration, allow the examination of her private parts and publicly disclose that she has been Judicial confession may sustain the
sexually abused if her motive were other than to fight for her honor and bring to justice the finding of guilt;
person who defiled her. Thus not surprisingly when she was queried as to how much would Extrajudicial confession may not and
she claim for her defilement in terms of moral damages, she emphatically declared as follows: must be corroborated with evidence of
the corpus delicti
Q.......If you were to ask for moral damages from the court, how much would you claim for
moral damages?
A.......I do not need payment it is Justice that I ask.
May an admission be for the party who made them?
She, likewise, flatly denied the existence of an illicit affair with the accused-appellant in face NO. Because then, it would then be self-serving.
of the not too subtle insinuations of defense counsel to this effect on cross-examination, viz: o For example, a diary may not be considered as an admission for him, but may
be used against him
Q.......I will ask you a candid question, Mrs. Marohomoc. Is it not a fact that at one time you
o An admission made by the party may not be controverted by the same party who
gifted Dante Cepeda with a Herway lotion?
made them
A.......No, sir.
Classifications of Admissions
Q.......So you will also deny that you gifted him with Mark cigarettes.
A.......Oh no! A. Judicial and Extrajudicial
In a prosecution for rape, the evaluation of the evidence presented during trial ultimately
revolves around the credibility of the complaining witness. When a woman says she has been Judicial Admissions Extrajudicial Admissions
raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony One made in pleadings filed or in the Made one out of the court or in another
alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the progress of the trial or course of the judicial proceeding
accused. proceeding so as to dispense with the
introduction of evidence otherwise
necessary to dispense with some rule of
Admissions, Confessions, and the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule practice necessary to be observed and
complied with
Generally conclusive against the party May be disputed and there must be proof o furthermore, an offer of compromise does not ordinarily proceed from an implied
making them belief that the adversary’s claim is well founded, but rather the belied that the further
prosecution of the claim whether well founded or not will cause more annoyance—
desire for peace and not concession of the wrong done
Manner o not a proof of the debt or the obligation unless coupled with such recognition of the
Express Implied Adoptive debt
Made by a One in which may be A third party’s statement becomes the
positive inferred from the party’s admissions when: Reason for the rule in criminal cases, why admissible as evidence against the accused:
statement declarations or acts of a 1. the party expressly agrees to a or
or act person concurs in in an oral statement made o in the matter of public crimes, which directly affects public interst, insofar as public
by another vengeance and private interests are concerned, no compromise whatever may be
2. hears a statement and later on entered into as regards the penal action, however it may be with respect to the civil
essentially repeats it liability
3. replies by way of rebuttal to some o exceptions, if allowed by statute, the compromise is not admissible against the
specific points raised by another but accused:
ignores the further points which he or a. opium and usury laws allowing compromise
she has heard the other made b. criminal laws regarding customs
4. reads and subsequently signs a written
statement by another 1. People vs. Lase – 219 S 584
Conduct, silence,
acquiescence Facts:
1. The accused was charged with murder of for the stabbing of Dante Huelva.
2. During the trial, one of the prosecution witnesses, Godofredo Huelva the relative of
Effects of admissions made by a party the victim, stated that the accused offered to settle the case for the sum of
Generally, they would no longer require proof and cannot be contradicted P10,000.00 for which he refused.
Unless, it is previously shown that such was made through palpable mistake, ignorance or a. The accused only offered alibi as a defense
innocent mistake b. But as a surrebuttal to the testimony of Godofredo Huelva, denied having
made the offer, but he did insinuate that he could offer a higher amount.
RULE 130 SECTION 27 – OFFER OF COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSIBLE “even if it is true, I am going to pay them P50k”
3. The trial court rendered a decision convicting him of murder.
4. Hence the present action by the appellant.
Rule 130. Section 27. OFFER TO COMPROMISE NOT ADMISSION
In relation to our topic: THE SC UPHELD THE FINDING OF GUILT of the accused by
In a civil case, an offer to compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not sufficient evidence of the guilt to prove such beyond reasonable doubt.
admissible in evidence against the offer.
Among such evidence that worked against the accused was the offer of compromise made by
In Criminal Cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those Lase to the family of the victim.
allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of the guilt. The accused appellant offered to compromise the case for the amount of P10k. The second
paragraph of Section 27 Rule 130 states:
A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense,
is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. In Criminal Cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those
allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury evidence as an implied admission of the guilt.
is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
Murder is not among those criminal cases which may be compromised.
Reason for the rule in civil cases:
o it is the policy of the law to favour the settlement of disputes, to foster compromises
and to promote peace. To permit the introduction of offers to of compromise tends to
discourage the adjustment of suits and for that reason, against public policy
2. Trans Pacific Industrial Supplies, Inc. vs. CA and the Associated Bank – 235 S note that the right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that by a
494 natural law belongs to the sovereign power instinctly charged by the common will of the
members of society to look after, guard and defend the interest of the community, the
Facts: individual and social rights and liberties of every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise of his
1. Transpacific Industrial obtained several loans from the Associated Bank in the rights. The cardinal principle which states that to the State belongs the power to prosecute and
amount of P1.3 Million pesos secured by several promissory notes and mortgages. punish crimes should not be overlooked since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereign
2. The loans were restructured such that the total amount was lessened. Three State. As provided by the Civil Code of the Philippines:
promissory notes were issued by Transpacific.
3. The Associated Bank then filed a complaint for the collection of sum of money Art. 2034. There may be a compromise upon the civil liability arising from an offense; but
against Transpacific. such compromise shall not extinguish the public action for the imposition of the legal penalty.
4. During the trial, Transpacific argued that they have already made the payments to
the Bank by the selling of the parcels of land used as security prior to the
restructuring of the loans. 4. People vs. Amaca – 277 S 215
a. That as proof of the payment, the three duplicate copies of the promissory
notes were returned by the Bank to Transpacific with the stamp “PAID” 2 branches of the res inter alios acta rule:
5. On the other hand, the respondents argue that:
a. the stamp were merely on the duplicate copies First: rights of the party cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of another
b. submitted also as evidence the letter of the petitioner offering as a (Section 28)
settlement or payment by way of dacion en pago, expressly stating therein
that they recognize their obligations and that they have not faithfully Second: Evidence of previous conduct, or similar conduct at one time is not admissible to
complied with them. prove that one did or di not do the same act at another time. (Section 34)
6. The RTC upheld the presumption of payment
7. The CA reversed by reason of the letter.
Section 28. Admission by third party. — The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced
Issue: Should the offer of compromise in the letter by Transpacific be admitted against them? by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.
Ruling: yes. Res inter alios acta alteri necere non debet- the transaction between two parties will not
operate to the disadvantage of the third
The petitioner claims that in civil cases, an offer of compromise is not admissible against the
party making the offer. Reason for the rule:
o A man’s own acts, declaration and conduct, are binding upon him as a matter of
However, such rule is not an iron-clad rule and admits of exceptions. good faith and mutual convenience.
o Yet it would not only rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust that a man
To determine the admissibility and the non-admissibility of a an offer to compromise, the should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers
circumstances of the case and the intent of the party making the offer must be considered. Note however that this rule only applies to extrajudicial declarations. Hence, statements
made in an open court by a witness implicating persons aside from his own admissions, are
Thus, if a party making the offer for the purpose of buying peace and avoiding litigation, the admissible as declarations from one who has personal knowledge of the facts testified to.
same is not admissible.
Exceptions to this rule:
However, if in the course of the offer, the party making the offer admits to the liability, then 1. Admission by partner, agent, or other person jointly interested with the party
the offer of compromise is admissible against the party making the offer. 2. Admission by co-conspirator
3. Admission by successor- in-interest
Reason for the exceptions:

3. People vs. Buemio – 265 S 582 o Such person is under the same circumstances as the person against whom it is
offered. Such circumstances give him substantially the same interest and the same
motive to make a statement about certain matters.
Complaints Bernardo Salazar and Richard Quillope may have a change of heart insofar as the
offense wrought on their person is concerned when they executed their joint affidavit of
desistance but this will not affect the public prosecution of the offense itself. It is relevant to
Section 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. — The act or declaration of a partner Similarly this rule applies only in extrajudicial confessions/admissions. Why? Because he
or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the may well be considered as a regular witness testifying to the facts known to him.
partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or
agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the
act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the Section 31. Admission by privies. — Where one derives title to property from another, the
party. (26a) act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former. (28)
Requisites for Admissibility:
What are privies?
First, that the partnership, agency, or joint interest is proven by evidence other than o Are persons who are partakers or have an interest in the any action or thing, or any
the act or declaration sought to be admitted; relation to another
o Pertains not only to succession in right of heirship or testamentary legacy, but also
Second, that the admission is within the scope of the partnership, agency, or joint by virtue of acts inter vivos such as assignment, subrogation, or purchase
interests
Requisites in order that the admissions of predecessor-in-interest be admissible against
Third, that the admission was made while the agency, partnership, or joint interest the successor-in-interest:
was in existence. 1. FIRST: there must be an act, declaration or omission by a predecessor in interest
2. SECOND: the act, declaration or omission of the predecessor must have occurred
while he was holding the title to the property
RULE 130 SECTION 30 – ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR 3. THIRD: the act, omission or declaration, must be in relations to property
Section 30. Admission by conspirator. — The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to o the property must still be holding title to the property when he made such act,
the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator declaration or omission. Otherwise, the general rule of res alios inter acta will apply.
after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
Reason for the Admissibility 1. People vs. Condemena – 23 S 910

o Where a body of men assume the attribute of individuality, whether for commercial,
business, or commission of a crime, the association should be bound by the acts of
one of its members in carry9ing out the design; and the legal principle governing in The positive identification of appellant Simplicio Aniel was further bolstered when Pelagio
cases where several are connected to one of those concerned in the furtherance of the Condemena and Casamero Patino, in their sworn statements Exhibits "B" and "C", named
original enterprise with reference to the common object is, in the contemplation of Simplicio Aniel as one of them in the group when they killed Fermin Lamoste and robbed the
law, the act or declaration of all house of P200.00 on October 6, 1962, at about 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
Requisites for admissibility: Extrajudicial confessions, independently made without collusion, which are identical with
each other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on record, are
First, that the conspiracy is first proven by evidence other than the admission itself; admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated to show the probability of
the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime. As this Court has said:
Second, that the admission relates to the common object;
While confession of a coconspirator are not ordinarily admissible as evidence
Third, that it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the against another coconspirator, the fact that they implicate the latter and were made
conspiracy soon after the commission of the crime, is circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of their coconspirator having actually participated therein.
Conspiracy, defined. The commission of the crime was attended by treachery. The act of the accused in suddenly
o Exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission rushing towards the victim, then two of them, each holding the hands of the victim, and the
of a felony and decide to commit it. third of them stabbed the victim, is characterized by treachery insuring the accomplishment of
o Once the conspiracy is proven the act of one is the act of all. Hence, an their purpose without risk to themselves from any defense or retaliation the victim might offer.
exception to the res inter alios acta rule.
The conspiracy among the accused is evident and equally proven. Their acts collectively and
individually executed have clearly demonstrated the existence of a common design towards

the accomplishments of the same unlawful purpose and objective — to rob the house of recording made during the trial, it may be seen that his confession was freely and voluntarily
Lamoste. Altho the killing of Fermin Lamoste was accomplished by only three of the intruders given (pp. 732, 748 749, 782, 791, 816817, 828836, 924992, t.s.n.).
without any physical participation thereof by the appellant Simplicio Aniel, however, as
conspiracy has been established, the crime committed is robbery in band, and the homicide The confessions of Arcadio Puesca, Magno Montaño and Jose Gustilo are admissible against
was committed on the occasion thereof, all the members of the band are liable for robbery with them. Their confessions could be considered as corroborative evidence of the testimonies of
homicide (People vs. Evangelista, et al., L 2489, April 12, 1950). prosecution eyewitnesses pointing to them as the culprits who participated in the commission
of the crime.
And Third, the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses find corroboration in the extrajudicial
... any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, confessions of appellants Puesca alias "Big Boy", Gustilo alias "Peping", and Montaño alias
shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it "Edol", insofar as said confessions tell about the participation of their other companions in the
be shown that he attempted to prevent the same. (Art. 296, Revised Penal Code.) commission of the crime. Thus, Arcadio Puesca, in his extrajudicial confession, named Jose
Gustilo alias "Peping", Magno Montaño alias "Edol", Felimon, Carding, Mariano and two
the appellant Simplicio Aniel is liable as principal because the evidence does not show that he others whose names he did not know, as his companions in the perpetration of the crime
had attempted to prevent the assault and the killing of Fermin Lamoste. (Exhibit "L", folder of exhibits; pp. 774775, t.s.n.). He narrated how the plan to rob the Macias
family was conceived, as well as the manner in which they implemented the plan. The person
2. People vs. Provo – 37 S 19 referred to as "Felimon", he said, was appellant Filomeno Macalinao, Jr. (p. 731, t.s.n.). Thus,
in the tape recorded confession of appellant Jose Gustilo, he declared that his confederates in
As regards the admissibility of Exhibits C and E as evidence against Mesina, it should be the crime were Arcadio Puesca alias "Big Boy", Magno Montaño alias "Edol", Filomeno
noted that, although extrajudicial confessions are in general admissible only against those who Macalinao, Mariano, Carding and others
made the same, this rule is subject to an exception. As pointed out and applied in People v.
Condemena: And thus, in the confession of Magno Montaño alias "Edol", which was in his own
handwriting and which was also tape recorded, he mentioned Arcadio Puesca alias "Big Boy",
Extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion, which are identical with each Jose Gustilo alias "Peping" and Felimon Macalinao as his confederates in staging the hold up
other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on record, are admissible (pp. 9991005, 11191120, 1122, t.s.n.; Exhibit "Q", folder of exhibits). According to his
as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated to chow the probability of the latter's confession, it was Gustilo who shot to death the late Candido Macias (pp. 1002, 11221123,
actual participation in the commission of the crime. t.s.n.), and that it was Macalinao who got the 38 caliber pistol of the deceased (p. 1128, t.s.n.).
Both declarants corroborated the narration given by Puesca.
It is true that an extrajudicial confession is admissible only against the person who made it, but
3. People vs. Puesca – 87 S 130 it is also settled that such confession is admissible as corroborative evidence of other facts that
tend to establish the guilt of his co defendants. 7 This Court has also allowed its admission
The evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the appellants were engaged in a against a coaccused as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the coconspirator
conspiracy to effect the object of their criminal purpose. Since conspiracy by its very nature is having
formed in utmost secrecy, it can seldom be actually participated in the commission of the crime. 8
proved by direct evidence. 4 Conspiracy is "generally proved by a number of indefinite acts,
conditions and circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. If it RULE 130 SECTION 32 – ADMISSION BY SILENCE
be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, one performing one part
and another a part of the same, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the Section 32. Admission by silence. — An act or declaration made in the presence and within
same object, one will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged in a conspiracy to the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is
effect the object ..." 5 In contrast with evidence premeditation, which requires as an essential such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for
condition that a sufficient period of time must elapse to afford full opportunity for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him.
premeditation and reflection on the possible consequences of the intended criminal act,
conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the Reason:
felony and forthwith decide to accomplish it. Once this is established, each and everyone of o The rule that silence is construed as an admission of the truth of the assertion rests
the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime committed by any member of the on the instinct of our nature, which leads us to resist an unfounded demand.
conspiracy. o Silence gives consent
Second, the confessions of appellant Arcadio Puesca (Exhibit "L"), appellant Magno Montaño Requisites for admissibility:
(Exhibit "Q") and appellant Jose Gustilo (Exhibit "R") admit their participation in the 1. he heard and understood the statement;
commission of the crime at the house of Macias (pp. 924992, 9881133, t.s.n.). The confession 2. he was at liberty to interpose a denial;
of Jose Gustilo, however, was the only one which was unsigned as he afterwards refused to 3. that the statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which he
affix his signature thereto; but his confession was tape recorded and from the replay of the was then interested, and calling naturally for an answer
4. that the facts are within his knowledge; and i. Are those made in conformity with the law before a court in the
5. that the fact admitted or the influence to be drawn from his silence would be course of legal proceedings
material to the issue. b. Extrajudicial- those made by a party elsewhere other than before a court
c. When an extrajudicial confession is repeated in court, it is converted
into a judicial confession.
1. US vs. Bay – 27 P 495
B. How done (without reference to admissibility, definition only)
In a prosecution for rape it appears that a party, having been attracted by the cries of the
alleged offended party, wne tot the scene of the crim, and that one of them, seeing the 1. Implied Confession
defendant, got up form the alleged place where the woman claimed the crime was committed, o Where the defendant, in a case not capital, does not plead guilty but indirectly
and asked, “What is this?” and the defendant made no explanation of his conduct or his admits his guilt by placing himself at the mercy of the court and asking for a
presence there, and left the place fortwith. light sentence
o Nature of plea bargaining inasmuch as confession is already express and
Held: the unexplained silence of a man surprised in company with a woman by whom he is direct, never implied.
there and then charged with rape, under circumstance which would naturally call for an
indignant denial of such a charge by an innocent man, is evidence tending to establish the guilt 2. Indirect confession
of the crime thus charged. o One inferred from the counsel of the defendant
When not held to be applicable: 3. Involuntary confession

o During custodial investigations for constitutional reasons o Induced by hope, promise, fear, violence, torture, or threat
o If made in the course of judicial proceedings
4. Naked confession
RULE 130 SECTION 33 – CONFESSION o Confession as an admission on the guilt of the party but is not supported by any
evidence on the commission of the crime
Section 33. Confession. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the
offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence 5. Simple confession
against him. o Plea of guilty
Reason For Admissibility 6. Voluntary confession

o If it made voluntarily and intelligently, the confession constitutes an evidence of o One made spontaneously by a person accused of the crime, free form the
high order, since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal influence of any extraneous disturbing cause, an in particular, not influenced or
mind will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a extorted by threats, violence, or promises
crime unless prompted by truth and conscience.
In criminal cases:
o Acknowledgment in express words by the accused of the truth of the offense RULE 130 SECTION 43. ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OR THE
charges, or of some essential part thereof. BUSINESS RECORDS RULE
o Voluntary statement made by a person charged with the commission of the crime or
misdemeanor, communicated to another person wherein he acknowledges himself to Section 43. Entries in the course of business. — Entries made at, or near the time of
be guilty of the offense charged, and discloses the circumstances of the act or thr transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a
share and participation which he had in it position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such
person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the
In civil procedure: ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
o a formal admission of some allegations made by the other side.
Reasons for Admissibility:
Classification of Confessions:
 They were made in the course of the business and part of the res gestae
A. When made:  Necessity: they are the best available evidence
a. Judicial o When the entrant cannot be had, to testify in court, a necessity arises to
take such other evidence from him as his entries supply
 Reliability and trustworthiness: the habit and system of making regular entries for independent evidence only when
business purposes produces usually a correct statement by the very trouble and the enterer had personal
difficulty of making false statement frequently, and by the usual absence of motive knowledge of the facts entered,
to do so. and when it is his duty to inform
o An erroneous entry, if made, is likely to be detected and disputed by the himself of the truth of the
associates or customers of the entrant matters he had undertaken to
o When the entry is by a clerk or agent, his responsibility to his superior record
produces additional caution (6) there must be more than one entry Entries must be a part of a series of entries
or reports, not casual or isolated; not
Requisites of Admissibility: sporadic, and out of usual order in which
the transactions o f the business are
Requisite Discussion recorded; why? Regularity of the record
(1) the person who made the entry must be may be evidenced by the inspection and
dead or is unable to testify the fulfillment of this requirement
(2) the entrant made the entries in his  made the entries in his
professional capacity or duty professional capacity, regular
duty, or special duty enjoined by Will the Best Evidence Rule and/or parol evidence find application in this case?
law, or other regular and  Yes.
ordinary duties
 there must have been a special Other Notes:
duty devolving upon the entrant  Rules on Electronic evidence also expressly exempt business records from the
to make the entries that are application of the hearsay rule
sought to be introduced
e.g. of not regular, hence, not admissibile:
saloon keeper entered in his books items What is the probative value?
for games and corn and money; private  Creates a prima facie evidence of the fact stated therein
diary of the employee about the  Considered as the truth on face value unless otherwise proven to be untrue
circumstances on such; bookkeeping  But may still be questioned by putting in issue the veracity and the truth of the facts
entries by the treasurer which do not come o Or other points showing that the entry was wrong
within his authority
(3) the entries were made in the ordinary Entries must be in the way of business
course of business or duty Defined to mean a course of transactions RULE 130 SECTION 44 – ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
performed in one’s habitual relations with
others and as a natural part of one’s mode Section 44. Entries in official records. — Entries in official records made in the performance
of obtaining livelihood of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty
No reference as to the type of business or specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
occupation done; but refers to the act of
“keeping records” as part of the business Reason for Admissibility
operations
(4) the entries were made at or near the Records are made contemporaneously with Necessity
time of the transaction to which it relates the transactions and assures a fairly  Litigations are unlimited in which the testimony of public officials would be daily
(before the controversy arose) accurate recollection of the matter as well needed
as trustworthiness  If there is no exception for official statements, hosts of officials would be found
devoting the greater part attending as witness in court and delivering their
Hence, entries made by a party after the depositions
rights of an opposite party had already  Their work will suffer
accrued, after the dispute has arisen, or an
action begun, are inadmissible
(5) the entrant must be in a position to Why? “competency of the entrant”
know the facts stated therein  entry is competent as an original Trustworthiness
st
51
 the law reposes a particular confidence upon public officers that it presumes they
will discharge their duties with accuracy and fidelity
1. People vs. Bernaldez – 294 S 317
Requisites for Admissibility Facts:

(1) the accused Bernalez was charged with the crime of rape allegedly committed
(1) the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined to do against Maria Theresa Bernaldez, her niece, in Barangay Sugcad, Municipliaty of
so Polanguio Province of Albay.
(2) it was made in the performance of his duties or by another person in the performance (2) During the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented the following:
of a duty specially enjoined by law a. Maria Teresa, the victim, and her father Pedro
(3) the public officer or the other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him b. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Nancy Dela Paz, a government
stated, acquired by him either personally or through official channels connected with doctor, who examined Maria Teresa.
the exercise of his public functions i. The medical Certificate stated that: there were old lacerations at
3:00 and 9 o’clock” and “newlyhealed lacerations at 11 o’clock”
Discussion of the Requisites on the hymen of MARIA TERESA
c. However, the medical doctor was not presented in court.
First requisite: the entry must have been made by the public officer or by a private person by (3) On the other hand, the defense presented the accused to establish an alibi as well as a
law specially enjoined to make such entry certain Delfin Paular, the overseer of the rice mill where the accused was working.
(4) The Muniicipal Circuit Trial Court rendered a decision finding the accued appellant
Examples: guilty. The decision of the MCTC was based on several grounds, among them, and
 tax records made by the tax officer giving much weight to the medical certificate issued by the medical doctor.
 official cash-book kept by the disbursing officer of the coast guard and a. In considering the medical certificate despite the failure of the Dr. De La
transportation department Paz to testify thereon, the trial court reasoned that the document, being an
 notarial register act done by a public officer, was presumed to be done regularly, unless
 records of birth, marriages and death kept by the municipal secretary proved otherwise.
 priests or ministers administering marriages who are keeping the hitd copy of the (5) Because of the penalty of the crime, the case was automatically reviewed by the SC.
marriage contract and license
Decision of the SC: Nevertheless, the SC upheld the decision of the MCTC in finding
 sheets of assessment revisions signed by the provincial assessor as to the ownership
guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the part of the accused appellant.
of the land
Issue related to our topic: was the MCTC correct in considering the medical certificate
Second Requisite: the entry must have been made in the performance of duty
issued by the government doctor who was never presented in court?
 may be expressly stated by the law, the regulation, or statute
 may be implied form the nature of the office of the officer Ruling: No. the medical certificate is admissible. But it has no probative value.
Third Requisite: the entrant must have sufficient knowledge of the facts by him entered 1. The trial court erred in giving weight to the medical certificate issued by Dr. De la
The knowledge may be: Paz despite the failure of the latter to testify. The certificate could be admitted as an
exception to the hearsay rule.
(1) personally known to the entrant; or 2. However, since it involved an opinion of one who must first be established as an
(2) when entry is made by one in the performance of duty, of his facts reported to him expert witness, it could not be given weight or credit unless the doctor who issued it
by another in the discharge of a duty devolving upon such other by virtue of his be presented in court to show his qualifications.
employment, it is nevertheless admissible
a. it is essential however that the report from which the entry is made should
have been communicated under the sanction of duty of obligation, and not 2. People vs. Divina – 221 S 209
causally or voluntarily
Facts:
How are entries proved? (1) the Accused appellants Belarmino Divina and Mecrito Baga were charged with the
 Production of the books or records themselves, or by production of a copy certified crime of the murder of Concepcion Baillo and the crime of frustrated murder of
by the legal custodian thereof Jaime Baillo.

(2) During the trial of the case, the following were presented in court as evidence for the (3) The trial court rendered a decision finding the accused appellant guilty of rape
prosecution: beyond reasonable doubt. It ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution also
a. The lone testimony of Jaime Baillo, one of the victims, who positively clear and convincing.
identified the assailant as the accused appellant (4) Hence, the present action by the accused appellant.
b. Another evidence presented was the police blotter where the statements of
a certain Fr. Badoy, whose truck was used to return to the place where the Issue: was the guilt of the accused appellant proven beyond reasonable doubt?
shooting incident happened were indicated.
i. the said police blotter stated that the shooting incident happened Ruling: No. the court noted a number of significant facts from which the recorded
at around 7:40 in the evening. evidence of the prosecution materially and substantially debunked and derailed the
(3) On the other hand, both the accused appellants tried to establish alibi. theory of the government and gave considerable merit to the defense.
(4) Both accused were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both crimes.
(5) Hence the present action by the accused appellants arguing among all others that the
positive identification by Jaime Baillo was questionable because as stated in the In relation to our topic, which became also controlling in this case, was whether indeed
police blotted, the shooting incident happened at around 7:40 in the evening and not the rape had taken place on the date alleged by the complainant.
6:30 as claimed by the prosection. Hence, it was not possible for the victim to have
seen the accused without the aid of a lighted torch (madilim daw, so di sya 1. as the prosecution have pointed out, Irene was brought to the hospital on the day that
naidentify hehe) she was raped. However, the lacerations, as found by the medical examination of the
doctor, were already healing as stated bythe medical certificate.
Decision of the Supreme Court: a. The clinical case record of Irene Dulay's admission and confinement at
 The accused Mecrito is found not guilty. the Provincial Hospital of La Union, marked Exhibit "2", contain entries
 Accused Divina, however, is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. which totally and completely belie the claim of the complainant that she
was raped by the accused in the afternoon of April 22, 1973.
In relation to our topic, what is the significance of the police blotter as evidence b. Assuming that the victim was raped between 2 and 3 o'clock p.m., April
presented by the prosecution: 22, 1973 (the same day she was admitted in the hospital), then the
lacerations of the hymen at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock would not have been
 A police blotter is a book which records criminal incidents reported to the police. described and indicated to be Healing in the clinical case record. It would
Entries in official records, as in this case of a police blotter, are only prima facie be described as "laceration fresh" or by similar words like "bloody or new
evidence of the facts therein stated. They are not conclusive. lacerations." There is no instant formula, technique or process known to
medical science or by human experience to hasten the healing of a
 It is undisputed that the alleged time of the commission of the crime, i.e., 7:40 in the lacerated hymen within three (3) hours or so after defloration.
evening of June 17, 1988, was supplied only by the parish priest Fr. Badoy who was c. it follows reasonably that the defloration occurred several days before,
neither present when the shooting incident happened nor presented as a witness which may have happened when Irene Dulay took a weeklong vacation to
during the trial. The information supplied is therefore hearsay and does not have her hometown in Pugo, La Union
any probative value. 2. Application of the rule: The written entries in the clinical case record, Exh.
"2", showing the date of her admission in the hospital on April 22, 1973, her
complaint of vaginal bleeding and the diagnosis of "Healing lacerated wide at 2
o'clock and 10 o'clock hymen" are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
3. People vs. Leones – 117 S 382 stated, the said entries having been made in official records by a public officer
of the Philippines in the performance of his duty especially enjoined by law,
Facts: which is that of a physician in a government hospital. (Rule 130, Sec. 38, Rules
(1) Accused- appellant Joseph Leones was charged with the crime of rape of their 16 of Court). In the case at bar, Dr. Antonino Estioco was the admitting physician
year- old saleslady employee, Irene Dulay. but unfortunately, he was not presented as a witness for the government.
(2) During the trial, the prosecution presented the following:
a. Irene Dulay who alleges that she was drugged by the appellant accused
when they were in resort in La Union
i. That on the same day she was raped, she was brought to the 4. People vs. Crisostomo – 160 S 47
hospital to be examined by the doctor
b. Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Cayao of the Provincial Hospital of Facts:
La Union which stated that there were HEALING lacerations of the 1. the accused- appellant was charged with the crime of the murder of Romeo
hymen at 2 o’clock position. Geronimo. Romeo was shot once on Christmas day by the appellant Eugenio
Crisostomo.
a. During the trial, aside from the accounts of other witnesses, the admission order or Mittimus and the copy of the judgment) were all missing. It was later on
of the accused’s shooting of the victim, as well as the offer of plea of proven by the Clerk of the court of the RTC of Manila that the said records of the
guilty of the same, the death certificate and the notes of Dr. Santos, the criminal case were all burned during the Manila City Hall fire on November 3, 1986.
medical doctor who attended to the victim when he was brought to the (3) Writ of Habeas Corpus: petitioner filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
hospital and externally examined the body of the victim was presented to Habeas Corpus5 with the Supreme Court against the Jail Warden of the Manila City
establish the fact of death as well as the cause of the death. Jail, the Presiding Judge of Branch 2, Regional Trial Court of Manila, and the City
b. That the said documents stated that the cause of death was a gun shot Prosecutor of Manila, praying for his discharge from confinement on the ground that
wound wherein there were two wounds: an entry and an exit wound his continued detention without any valid judgment is illegal and violative of his
2. The Trial court rendered a decision finding him guilty of the crime of murder. constitutional right to due process.
3. Hence the present action of Crisostomo. He avers that: (4) The SC resolved to issue the Writ and ordered that the case be raffled on a
a. That the death certificate of the victim (Exhibit A) to which he offered no scheduled date.
objection is admissible only to establish the fact of death not the cause of (5) The RTC of Manila then rendered a decision dismissing the case for the Writ of
the death of the victim. Habeas Corpus stating that: the mere loss of the records of the case does not
b. He further avers that the testimony of Dr. Juan Santos who examined the invalidate the judgment or commitment nor authorize the release of the petitioner,
body of the victim but did not perform an autopsy shows that he did not and that the proper remedy would be reconstitution of the records of the case which
qualify as an expert witness; and even if he were an expert witness there should be filed with the court which rendered the decision.
was no basis for him to render an opinion as to the cause of death of the a. It ruled that there was sufficient evidence on record that the petitioner was
victim convicted of the crime.
(6) The CA upheld the decision of the RTC.
Issue: was the trial court correct in convicting the accused appellant?
Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing that his constitutional rights are being
Ruling: Yes. violated for his continued detention without the valid copies of the judgment convicting him.
In relation to the arguments and our topic: What is the significance of the said documents
presented by the prosecution? Issue: was there sufficient evidence showing his conviction and thereby justifyinghis
continued incarceration?
The death certificate and the notes issued by Dr. Santos after his external examination of the
body of the victim establish the cause of death of the deceased contrary to the contention of Ruling: Yes.
the appellant.
Based on the records and the hearing conducted by the trial court, there is sufficient evidence
In this jurisdiction such death certificate and notes issued by said municipal health on record to establish the fact of conviction of petitioner which serves as the legal basis for his
officer in the regular performance of his duty are prima facie evidence of the cause of detention. Petitioner made judicial admissions, both verbal and written, that he was charged
death of the victim. with and convicted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment “habang buhay.”
(1) The records contain a certified true copy of the Monthly Report dated January
198519 of then Judge Rosalio A. De Leon, attesting to the fact that petitioner was
5. Feria vs. CA – 325 S 525 convicted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide on January 11, 1985.
a. Such Monthly Report constitutes an entry in official records under
Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, which is prima
Facts: facie evidence of facts therein stated.
(1) Petitioner Norberto Feria y Pacquing has been under detention since May 21, 1981,
up to present by reason of his conviction of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, in Other bases that the court used to prove the existence of conviction:
Criminal Case No. 60677, by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, for the
jeepney holdup and killing of United States Peace Corps Volunteer Margaret A. Admissions:
Viviene Carmona.
(2) However, it was later on discovered that the files and records of the petitioner in
relation to his charge and his conviction of the robbery (information, commitment
“During the trial and on manifestation and arguments made by the accused, his learned
counsel and Solicitor Alexander G. Gesmundo who appeared for the respondents, it appears
clear and indubitable that:
(A) Petitioner had been charged with Robbery with Homicide in Criminal Case No.
60677, Illegal Possession of Firearm in Criminal Case No. 60678 and Robbery
in Band in Criminal Case No. 60867. . . . In Criminal Case No. 60677 (Robbery
with Homicide) the accused admitted in open Court that a decision was read to
him in open Court by a personnel of the respondent Court (RTC Branch II)
sentencing him to Life Imprisonment (Habang buhay) . . .”
Petitioner’s declarations as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him under
Section 23 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
B. Hearsay
Public respondents likewise presented a certified true copy of People’s Journal dated January
18, 1985, page 2,20 issued by the National Library, containing a short news article that
petitioner was convicted of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and was sentenced to “life
imprisonment.”
However, newspaper articles amount to “hearsay evidence, twice removed” and are therefore
not only inadmissible but without any probative value at all whether objected to or not, unless
offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted. In this case, the news
article is admissible only as evidence that such publication does exist with the tenor of the
news therein stated.

RULE 130 SECTION 45. COMMERCIAL LISTS AND THE LIKE RULE 130 SECTION 46. LEARNED TREATISES
Section 45. Commercial Lists and the Like. Evidence of statements of matters of interest to Section 46. Learned treatises. — A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of
persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein
compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter as stated if that if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of
compilation is published for use by person engaged in that occupation and is generally used the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling
and relied upon by them therein. as expert in the subject.
Reason for the Admissibility Reasons for Admissibility
Necessity Necessity
 The usual unavailability of the persons who make the final compilation on the basis  it is extremely inconvenient and costly to produce qualified expert witness regarding
of personal knowledge make it tremendously inconvenient the matter subject of the publication
Trustworthiness o an ordinary witness, is perhaps the larger proportion of the topics upon
 Authors of the said compilations have no motive to deceive, and they further realize which he may questioned, has not a knowledge derived from personal
that unless their lists registers, and reports are prepared with care and accuracy, their observation. He virtually reproduced the conclusions of others which he
work will have no commercial or professional value accepts on authority of the eminent names responsible for them.
Trustworthiness
Take note of the requisites for exception to the hearsay rule be applied:  the writer publishes for his profession and he knows that this publications are subject
1. they are made by person engaged in that occupation to careful professional ciritiscm and is open ultimately to certain refutation if not
2. they are generally used and replied upon by them well founded
3. those lists and reports are published  his reputation is based on the correctness of his data and the validity of his
conclusions
Examples: Requisites of Admissibility

1. determination of the state of the market in market reports or (1) the Court takes Judicial Notice; OR
2. market reports or quotations as printed in newspaper trade circulars, trade journal, (2) qualified by another expert: A witness expert in the subject, testifies that the writer
and similar publications which are known, reliable and of good repute of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession
or calling as expert in the subject
Example: history books, and published findings of scientists; almanacs; encyclopedia; tide
tables, etc.

E. Unable to testify
RULE 130 SECTION 47 – TESTIMONY OR DEPOSITION AT A FORMER  Mere refusal to testify does not come within the purview of being unable to testify
PROCEEDING  Such witnesses can be arrested and punished for contempt
Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. — The testimony or

deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, How do you prove the former testimony?
judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in  Official transcript of the stenographic notes
evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him.  May also be proven by the witnesses who heard the testimony and is able to recall
and state it with satisfactory correctness
Take note also of the similar rule in Criminal Procedure: 1. De Leon vs. People – 210 S 151
Section 1 (f) Rule 115 of the ROC states: The issue as to the admissibility of the sworn statements and testimonies of Reyes and Quinto
Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased or deserves scant consideration at this stage of the case because this Court had already put the
outside the Philippines or unable to testify, or unavailable, given in another case, judicial or issue to rest when it denied the petition for certiorari earlier filed by herein petitioners
administrative, involving the same subject matter and the adverse party had the opportunity to questioning the decision of the Court of First Instance to admit the transcripts in question. By
cross-examine him. the express provision of section 1 (f) Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, the testimonies given by
witnesses during the preliminary investigation of the case on trial should be admitted into
evidence when such testimony was taken by question and answer in the presence of defendant
or his attorney, and there was an opportunity for the defendant to cross examine the witness
Reasons for the Admissibility “who is dead or incapacitated to testify or cannot with due diligence be found in the
Necessity Philippines” (People v. Villaluz, 125 SCRA 116 [1983]).
 the witness could no longer testify and his former testimony should be admitted to
prevent miscarriage of justice
Trustworthiness
 were already admitted in a previous case
 were already subject to a cross examination before
RULE 130 SECTION 48 – OPINION RULE

Requisites for Admissibility
(1) The testimony was rendered in a former case Section 48. General rule. — The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in
(2) There must be an identity of parties the following sections.
(3) There must be an identity of the subject matter although different causes of action
(4) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross examine the witness and
(5) The witness is dead, out of the Philippines, or unable to testify Why the general rule?
 This is because a witness must testify as to facts that were observed by him and it is
for the court to draw conclusion from the facts testified to.
Discussion of the Requisites
A. Former Case
 Any former judicial proceedings (not legislative or administrative proceedings) (1) Nelly Lim vs. CA, Judge Victorio of RTC of Pangasinan, and Juan Lim – 214 S
273
B. Same Parties
 The rule is already satisfied if the subsequent proceedings is between persons who Facts:
represent the parties to the proceeding by privity in law, blood, or estate 10. petitioner Nelly Lim and Juan Lim were lawfully married to each other.
11. petition for annulment: the Juan Lim then filed a petition for annulment of their
C. Relates to the Same Matter marriage on the ground that his wife, the petitioner, was suffering from schizophrenia
“before, during, and after the celevration of the marriage, and until the present”
D. the Adverse party had an opportunity to cross examine 12. the expert witness: during the trial, the private respondent presented 3 witnesses, among
them was Dra. Acampado who is a Medical Specialist II and in-charge of the Female

Service of the National Center for Mental Health a fellow of the Philippine Psychiatrist existing between them. As an expert witness, her testimony before the trial court cannot then
Association and a Diplomate of the Philippine Board of Psychiatrists. She was be excluded. The rule on this point is summarized as follows: chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
summoned as an expert witness. However, she also happened to be the attending

psychiatrist of the petitioner Nelly Lim. "The predominating view, with some scant authority otherwise, is that the statutory physician-
13. Motion to quash subpoena and suspend proceedings: the counsel of the petitioner then patient privilege, though duly claimed, is not violated by permitting a physician to give expert
filed a motion to quash subpoena to be issued for Dra. Acampado so that she may not be opinion testimony in response to a strictly hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving the
allowed to appear as a witness in court. physical mental condition of a patient whom he has attended professionally, where his opinion
14. During the hearing for the motion: is based strictly upon the hypothetical facts stated, excluding and disregarding any personal
a. Argument of the petitioner: Dra. Acampado is barred from testifying under professional knowledge he may have concerning such patient. But in order to avoid the bar of
the rule on the confidentiality of a physician-patient relationship the physician-patient privilege where it is asserted in such a case, the physician must base his
b. Argument of respondent: Dra. Acampado is appearing as an expert witness opinion solely upon the facts hypothesized in the question, excluding from consideration his
and would not be testifying on any information acquired while attending to her personal knowledge of the patient acquired through the physician and patient relationship. If
patient Nelly Lim in her professional capacity. he cannot or does not exclude from consideration his personal professional knowledge of the
15. Denial of the motion by the RTC Judge: the trial court judge denied the motion and patient’s condition he should not be permitted to testify as to his expert opinion."
stated in his order that: “the respondent’s motion [is denied] and forthwith allowed Dr.
Acampado to testify. However, the Court advised counsel for respondent to interpose his
objection once it becomes apparent that the testimony sought to be elicited is covered by
the privileged communication rule. (2) People vs. Galleno – 291 S 762
16. Dra. Acampado then took the witness stand and it was established by the RTC and the
CA that Dra. Acampado was qualified by counsel for private respondent as an expert
witness and was asked hypothetical questions related to her field of expertise. She neither Facts:
revealed the illness she examined and treated the petitioner for nor disclosed the results (1) the accused appellant Galleno was charged with the crime of Statutory Rape of the 5
of her examination and the medicines she had prescribed. year old child Evelyn Obligar Garganera.
17. The CA upheld the decision of the RTC Judge in allowing the testimony of the Dra. (2) During the trial, several witnesses were presented:
Acampado when the petitioner filed before the said court a petition for certiorari and a. Evelyn Obligar who testified that when Galleno, a friend of their family
prohibition to nullify the order denying the motion to exclude Dra. Acampado. It stated that: and neighbor, visited their house, he made her sit on his lap facing him.
a. First, the petitioner failed to establish the confidential nature of the testimony of Dra. When she was already sitting on his lap, he inserted his penis in his
Acampado vagina.
b. Secondly, the statements that Dra. Acampado gave do not fall within the realm of i. That this caused lacerations and bleeding. She needed medical
privileged communication because the information she disclosed were not obtained from attention.
the patient while attending her in her professional capacity and neither where the b. This is what is important: Three medical doctors who were able to
information necessary to enable the physicial to prescribe or give treatment of the patient examine the victim Evelyn were also presented. They were the doctors to
Nelly Lim. And neither does the information obtained from the physician tend to blacken whom the parents of Evelyn brought her to treat her bleeding.
the character of the patient or bring disgrace to her or invite reproach. i. Dr. Alfonso D. Orosco, the Rural Health Physician of
18. Hence, the present action by the petitioner Nelly Lim. Maayon, Capiz stated that: Evelyn’s vaginal laceration could
have been caused by a blunt instrument inserted into the vagina,
Issue: May Dr. Acampado be a witness for the respondent Juan Lim? that it was possible that a human penis in full erection had been
forcibly inserted into her vagina, and that a human penis in full
Ruling: Yes. As an expert witness. erection is considered a blunt instrument.
ii. Dr. Ma. Lourdes Lañada of the Roxas General Hospital
Our careful evaluation of the submitted pleadings leads Us to no other course of action but to stated that: that “there was a 3 cm. lacerated wound at the left
agree with the respondent Court’s observation that the petitioner failed to discharge that anterior onethird of the vagina” and “the presence of about 1015
burden. In the first place, Dr. Acampado was presented and qualified as an expert witness. As cc of blood” at the vaginal vault. Dr. Lañada recommended that
correctly held by the Court of Appeals, she did not disclose anything obtained in the course of Evelyn be admitted for confinement in the hospital because the
her examination, interview and treatment of the petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions wound in her vagina, which was still bleeding
alleged in the hypothetical problem did not refer to and had no bearing on whatever iii. Dr. Toledo of the Roxas General Hospital stated that: the child
information or findings the doctor obtained while attending to the patient. There is, as well, no suffered severe compound laceration which could have been
showing that Dr. Acampado’s answers to the questions propounded to her relating to the caused by a normal and fully developed penis of a man in a state
hypothetical problem were influenced by the information obtained from the petitioner. of erection that was forcibly inserted into her vagina and that the
Otherwise stated, her expert opinion excluded whatever information or knowledge she had insertion caused her vagina to hemorrhage which thus required
about the petitioner which was acquired by reason of the physician-patient relationship the transfusion of 255 cc of blood.
c. Defense of the accused: the accused however, was tryoing to establish the RULE 130 SECTION 48 – OPINION RULE
fact the bleeding was not caused by his penis, but of his ring finger with a
long nail accidentally penetrating the vagina of the victim while he was Section 48. General rule. — The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in
playing with her and throwing/lifting her up and down.
the following sections.
(3) Decision of the RTC: the RTc rendered a decision against the accused appellant and
convicted him of the crime as charged.
(4) By reason of the penalty imposed, the case was automatically raised to the SC
for automatic review. Why the general rule?
a. Among the contentions of the accused appellant was that the doctors  This is because a witness must testify as to facts that were observed by him and it is
made no conclusions as to what really caused the lacerations in the for the court to draw conclusion from the facts testified to.
vagina of the victim.
 A witness is not allowed to express his opinions upon the very question to be
b. the testimony of the three expert witnesses presented by the prosecution,
namely, Dr. Alfonso Orosco, Dr. Ma. Lourdes Lañada, and Dr. Machael determined by the court
Toledo, which convinced the trial court that rape was committed against  The witness may not state his interference from data observed by him provided that
the offended party, is not impeccable considering that they found that the observed data on which the inference is based have been or cane be reproduced
there was no presence of spermatozoa, and that they were not sure as to in court, by words or gestures of this witness or others, so fully, exactly, and
what caused the laceration in the victim’s vagina; that Dr. Lañada herself adequately, as a basis for the inference, that the witness’ opinion is merely
testified that Evelyn told her that it was the finger of accusedappellant
superfluous to the assistance to the court In the ascertainment of the truth (W)
which caused the laceration. In addition, accusedappellant banks on the
victim’s testimony on crossexamination, that it was the finger of accused
appellant which caused the laceration; and that she even disclosed this to Exceptions to the opinion rule:
accusedappellant’s father, Raul Galleno. a) Expert Opinion
b) Opinion of Ordinary Witness on certain specific subjects
Issue: what is the significance of the testimonies of the three doctors? Are they a. Identity of a person
admissible? What is their evidentiary weight? b. Handwriting
c. Mental sanity
Ruling: They are admissible and sufficiently support the finding of guilt of the accused
appellant. d. Impressions of emotion, behavior, condition, or appearance of a person
As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give opinions. It is
the court’s duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form opinions upon the facts
proved. (3) Nelly Lim vs. CA, Judge Victorio of RTC of Pangasinan, and Juan Lim – 214 S
273
However, conclusions and opinions of witnesses are received in many cases, and are not
confined to expert testimony, based on the principle that either because of the special skill or
expert knowledge of the witness, or because of the nature of the subject matter under Facts:
observation, or for other reasons, the testimony will aid the court in reaching a judgment. 19. petitioner Nelly Lim and Juan Lim were lawfully married to each other.
20. petition for annulment: the Juan Lim then filed a petition for annulment of their
marriage on the ground that his wife, the petitioner, was suffering from schizophrenia
In the case at bar, the trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with the aid of the expert “before, during, and after the celevration of the marriage, and until the present”
testimony of doctors who gave their opinions as to the possible cause of the victim’s
21. the expert witness: during the trial, the private respondent presented 3 witnesses, among
laceration, but also the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses, especially the victim
herself. In other words, the trial court did not rely solely on the testimony of the expert them was Dra. Acampado who is a Medical Specialist II and in-charge of the Female
witnesses. Such expert testimony merely aided the trial court in the exercise of its Service of the National Center for Mental Health a fellow of the Philippine Psychiatrist
judgment on the facts. Hence, the fact that the experts enumerated various possible Association and a Diplomate of the Philippine Board of Psychiatrists. She was
causes of the victim’s laceration does not mean that the trial court’s inference is wrong. summoned as an expert witness. However, she also happened to be the attending
psychiatrist of the petitioner Nelly Lim.
22. Motion to quash subpoena and suspend proceedings: the counsel of the petitioner then
filed a motion to quash subpoena to be issued for Dra. Acampado so that she may not be
allowed to appear as a witness in court.
23. During the hearing for the motion: Otherwise stated, her expert opinion excluded whatever information or knowledge she had
a. Argument of the petitioner: Dra. Acampado is barred from testifying under about the petitioner which was acquired by reason of the physician-patient relationship
the rule on the confidentiality of a physician-patient relationship existing between them. As an expert witness, her testimony before the trial court cannot then
b. Argument of respondent: Dra. Acampado is appearing as an expert witness be excluded. The rule on this point is summarized as follows:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
and would not be testifying on any information acquired while attending to her
patient Nelly Lim in her professional capacity. "The predominating view, with some scant authority otherwise, is that the statutory physician-
24. Denial of the motion by the RTC Judge: the trial court judge denied the motion and patient privilege, though duly claimed, is not violated by permitting a physician to give expert
stated in his order that: “the respondent’s motion [is denied] and forthwith allowed Dr. opinion testimony in response to a strictly hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving the
Acampado to testify. However, the Court advised counsel for respondent to interpose his physical mental condition of a patient whom he has attended professionally, where his opinion
objection once it becomes apparent that the testimony sought to be elicited is covered by is based strictly upon the hypothetical facts stated, excluding and disregarding any personal
the privileged communication rule. professional knowledge he may have concerning such patient. But in order to avoid the bar of
25. Dra. Acampado then took the witness stand and it was established by the RTC and the the physician-patient privilege where it is asserted in such a case, the physician must base his
CA that Dra. Acampado was qualified by counsel for private respondent as an expert opinion solely upon the facts hypothesized in the question, excluding from consideration his
witness and was asked hypothetical questions related to her field of expertise. She neither personal knowledge of the patient acquired through the physician and patient relationship. If
revealed the illness she examined and treated the petitioner for nor disclosed the results he cannot or does not exclude from consideration his personal professional knowledge of the
of her examination and the medicines she had prescribed. patient’s condition he should not be permitted to testify as to his expert opinion."
26. The CA upheld the decision of the RTC Judge in allowing the testimony of the Dra.
Acampado when the petitioner filed before the said court a petition for certiorari and
prohibition to nullify the order denying the motion to exclude Dra. Acampado. It stated that:
a. First, the petitioner failed to establish the confidential nature of the testimony of Dra. (4) People vs. Galleno – 291 S 762
Acampado
b. Secondly, the statements that Dra. Acampado gave do not fall within the realm of
privileged communication because the information she disclosed were not obtained from Facts:
the patient while attending her in her professional capacity and neither where the (5) the accused appellant Galleno was charged with the crime of Statutory Rape of the 5 year
information necessary to enable the physicial to prescribe or give treatment of the patient old child Evelyn Obligar Garganera.
Nelly Lim. And neither does the information obtained from the physician tend to blacken (6) During the trial, several witnesses were presented:
the character of the patient or bring disgrace to her or invite reproach. a. Evelyn Obligar who testified that when Galleno, a friend of their family and
27. Hence, the present action by the petitioner Nelly Lim. neighbor, visited their house, he made her sit on his lap facing him. When she
was already sitting on his lap, he inserted his penis in his vagina.
Issue: May Dr. Acampado be a witness for the respondent Juan Lim? i. That this caused lacerations and bleeding. She needed medical
attention.
Ruling: Yes. As an expert witness. b. This is what is important: Three medical doctors who were able to examine
the victim Evelyn were also presented. They were the doctors to whom the
Our careful evaluation of the submitted pleadings leads Us to no other course of action but to parents of Evelyn brought her to treat her bleeding.
agree with the respondent Court’s observation that the petitioner failed to discharge that i. Dr. Alfonso D. Orosco, the Rural Health Physician of Maayon,
burden. Capiz stated that: Evelyn’s vaginal laceration could have been
caused by a blunt instrument inserted into the vagina, that it was
In the first place, Dr. Acampado was presented and qualified as an expert witness. As correctly possible that a human penis in full erection had been forcibly inserted
held by the Court of Appeals, she did not disclose anything obtained in the course of her into her vagina, and that a human penis in full erection is considered
examination, interview and treatment of the petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions a blunt instrument.
alleged in the hypothetical problem did not refer to and had no bearing on whatever ii. Dr. Ma. Lourdes Lañada of the Roxas General Hospital stated
information or findings the doctor obtained while attending to the patient. There is, as well, no that: that “there was a 3 cm. lacerated wound at the left anterior one-
showing that Dr. Acampado’s answers to the questions propounded to her relating to the third of the vagina” and “the presence of about 1015 cc of blood” at
hypothetical problem were influenced by the information obtained from the petitioner. the vaginal vault. Dr. Lañada recommended that Evelyn be admitted

for confinement in the hospital because the wound in her vagina, expert knowledge of the witness, or because of the nature of the subject matter under
which was still bleeding observation, or for other reasons, the testimony will aid the court in reaching a judgment.
iii. Dr. Toledo of the Roxas General Hospital stated that: the child
suffered severe compound laceration which could have been caused
by a normal and fully developed penis of a man in a state of erection In the case at bar, the trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with the aid of the expert
that was forcibly inserted into her vagina and that the insertion caused testimony of doctors who gave their opinions as to the possible cause of the victim’s
her vagina to hemorrhage which thus required the transfusion of 255 laceration, but also the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses, especially the victim
cc of blood. herself. In other words, the trial court did not rely solely on the testimony of the expert
c. Defense of the accused: the accused however, was tryoing to establish the fact witnesses. Such expert testimony merely aided the trial court in the exercise of its
the bleeding was not caused by his penis, but of his ring finger with a long nail judgment on the facts. Hence, the fact that the experts enumerated various possible
accidentally penetrating the vagina of the victim while he was playing with her causes of the victim’s laceration does not mean that the trial court’s inference is wrong.
and throwing/lifting her up and down.
(7) Decision of the RTC: the RTc rendered a decision against the accused appellant and
convicted him of the crime as charged.
(8) By reason of the penalty imposed, the case was automatically raised to the SC for
automatic review.
a. Among the contentions of the accused appellant was that the doctors made
no conclusions as to what really caused the lacerations in the vagina of the
victim.
b. the testimony of the three expert witnesses presented by the prosecution,
namely, Dr. Alfonso Orosco, Dr. Ma. Lourdes Lañada, and Dr. Machael
Toledo, which convinced the trial court that rape was committed against the
offended party, is not impeccable considering that they found that there was no
presence of spermatozoa, and that they were not sure as to what caused the
laceration in the victim’s vagina; that Dr. Lañada herself testified that Evelyn
told her that it was the finger of accusedappellant which caused the laceration.
In addition, accusedappellant banks on the victim’s testimony on cross-
examination, that it was the finger of accused appellant which caused the
laceration; and that she even disclosed this to accusedappellant’s father, Raul
Galleno.
Issue: what is the significance of the testimonies of the three doctors? Are they
admissible? What is their evidentiary weight?
Ruling: They are admissible and sufficiently support the finding of guilt of the accused
appellant.
As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give opinions. It is
the court’s duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form opinions upon the facts
proved.
However, conclusions and opinions of witnesses are received in many cases, and are not
confined to expert testimony, based on the principle that either because of the special skill or

RULE 130 SECTION 49 – OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS  one possessing, in regard to a particular subject department of human
activity, knowledge not usually acquired by other persons
Section 49. OPINION OF EXPERT WITNESS. –- The opinion of a witness on a matter 3. Relevance and is the issue: the testimony must be to a matter that is in issue.
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may  The testimony is not admissible as to a matter not in issue
be received in evidence.
Three things must concur in order for the opinion of the expert witness be admissible in court: Mode of Examining an Expert witness
1. Subject Matter: the subject under consideration must be one that requires that the o The expert need not have personal observation on the data on which his opinion
court has the aid of knowledge or experience of an expert which men not especially is to be based
skilled do not have, and such therefore cannot be obtained from ordinary witness; o It is possible that the expert is stated with the data hypothetically, so that the
 Experts may give their opinions and inference upon questions of court may be able to reject his opinion later if he does not accept the data that
science, skill or trade, or other of the like kind, or when the subject were his basis and for the parties to be able to dispute the said data
matter of the inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely
to prove and are incapable of forming a correct judgment upon it
without assistance, order to attain knowledge of it Probative Value of the Opinion of the Expert Witness
 Are not admissible when the inquiry is into a subject matter, the o Although meriting consideration, it is not conclusive, and must be weighed in
nature of which is not as to require any peculiar habits or study, in relation to other proofs presented
order to qualify a man to understand o The Court is not bound by the opinion of an expert and ordinarily not conclusive
 Example: in a case for annulment under Art. 36 of the Family Code, o The probative force of the testimony of the expert does not lie in a mere statement of
the courts must consider as decisive evience the expert opinion of the his theory or opinion, but rather in the aid that he can render to the courts in
psychological and mental temperaments of the parties; in identifying showing the facts which serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which
the blood stains in the clothing of the accused, a medical expert is the logic of his conclusions is founded
necessary for such; expert testimony as to the identity of t fingerprint o Like any other testimony, in the light of the judge’s general knowledge and
is admissible because the method of identification of fingerprints is a experience on the subject of the inquiry, it will be weighed especially when there are
science requiring close study conflicting expert opinions
2. An Expert: the witness called as an expert must posses the knowledge, skill or
experience needed to inform the court in the particular case under consideration; For example, cases of forgery will not depend entirely on the expert opinion of a
 Before a witness is presented as an expert can be asked to give any handwriting expert, and in fact, not indispensable
opinion on the subject matter of the inquiry, his qualification as an
expert must first be shown and he may then state the facts showing
his requisite knowledge and skill. Case 1. Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. vs. William Lines, Inc. – 306 S 762
 upon such a question, the expert may testify not only as to the facts
but also to his conclusions based on the facts because the court is Parties of this case:
without knowledge necessary to enable it to draw the conclusion for o Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works (Cebu Shipyard) is a domestic corporation
itself without aid engaged in the business of dry docking and repairing of marine vessels
 not limited to classified and special profession but is admissible o William Lines, the plaintiff, is the owners of the Vessel M/V Manila City
wherever peculiar skill and judgment applied to a particular subject o The private respondent Prudential is the insurer of William Lines who is the
are required to explain the result by tracing them to their causes subrogee
 there exists no test in determining such, but the court considers an
expert a person who in the opinion of the court has a special 1. William Lines contracted with Cebu Shipyard for the repairs to be done on the
acquaintance with the immediate line of inquiry; yet he need not be vessel M/V Manila City.
thoroughly acquainted with the differentia of the specific under
consideration
2. After the major repairs were done, it was then transferred from Cebu Shipyard’s testimonies. If from the facts and evidence on record, a conclusion is readily ascertainable,
grave dock to the docking quay where the remaining repair to be done was the there is no need for the judge to resort to expert opinion evidence.
replating of the top of Water Ballast No. 12. Such was done by JNB General
Services, the subcontractor of Cebu Shipyard for the said repair and cleaning. In the case under consideration, the testimonies of the fire experts were not the only
a. At such time, the crew of MV Manila employed by William Lines were available evidence on the probable cause and origin of the fire. There were witnesses who
using the accommodations in the vessel were actually on board the vessel when the fire occurred. Between the testimonies of the
3. During the cleaning of Tank Top No. 12 where there cleaners were, a fire broke out fire experts who merely based their findings and opinions on interviews and the
and ultimately causing the destruction and the sinking of the said vessel. testimonies of those present during the fire, the latter are of more probative value.
4. Hence, William Lines filed a complaint against Cebu Shipyard for complaint for Verily, the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err in giving more weight to said
damages against CSEW, alleging that the fire which broke out in M/V Manila City testimonies.
was caused by CSEW’s negligence and lack of care.
5. During the trial of the case, Cebu Shipyard introduced expert witnesses Messrs,
David Grey and Gregory Southeard, fire experts, for the probable origin of the
fire in MV Manila City.
a. the said fire experts were one in their opinion that the fire did not
originate in the area of Tank Top No. 12 where the JNB workers were
doing hotworks but on the crew accommodation cabins on the portside
No. 2 deck.
6. The trial court rendered a decision against Cebu Shipyard and this was upheld by the
CA.
7. Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing among all others that the lower
courts were wrong in disregarding that testimonies of the expert witness in showing
the origin of the fire and the negligence of the crew members of MV Manila City.
The said courts should have given weight to the said testimonies in its decision.
Issue: What is the significance of the expert testimonies of the fire experts?
Ruling: Although admissible and entitled to consideration, probative value of the

testimonies may still vary as the courts may still weigh the expert testimonies in relation to
other pieces of evidence presented in court. And in this case, the other testimonies of the
persons who were there at the time the fire broke out were of more value.
Courts are not bound by the testimonies of expert witnesses. Although they may have
probative value, reception in evidence of expert testimonies is within the discretion of the
court. Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, provides:
SEC. 49. Opinion of expert witness.—The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be received in
evidence.
The word “may” signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness as evidence is a
prerogative of the courts. It is never mandatory for judges to give substantial weight to expert

RULE 130 SECTION 50. OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESS. 1. Relevance and Admissibility: is a person’s disposition—i.e., a trait, or group of
traits, or the sum of his traits admissible and relevant for certain purposes?
Section 50. The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given may be received in 2. Mode of Proving: Whenever it is so admissible as an evidentiary fact and thus
evidence regarding: becomes its turn a proposition to be proved, how it is to be evidenced, -- by the
a) the identity of a person, about whom he has adequate knowledge; community’s reputation, and by that only, and what conditions
b) a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
c) the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
d) The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition General Rule: Character evidence, as a rule, is not admissible
or appearance of a person. o Because it is generally irrelevant in determining c controversy because the evidence
of a person’s character or trait is not admissible to prove that a person acted in
Conditions for admissibility conformity with such character or trait in a particular issue
1. the opinion is relevant o If the courts would be allowed to be influenced by the character or reputation of the
2. it is the best nature of the case admits of parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity contest rather than
3. must come from a competent witness rely on the factual inquiry onto the merits of the case
RULE 130 SECTION 51. Character Evidence A. Criminal Cases
Definition:
o Character is the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and distinguish an 1. Accused proving his good moral character pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged
individual person; it refers to what a man is depends on the attributes he possesses
o Must be differentiated with reputation because such is the dependent on the view of
the others as to the qualities he possesses.
Reason for allowing the Rule:
o Character is what the person really is and reputation is what the person based on
o The defendant’s character showing the probability of his doing or not the act
others
charged, is essentially relevant
o Hence. The defendant may give evidence as to his good moral character to
evidence the improbability of his doing of the act charged, unless there is
SECTION 51. Character Evidence not generally admissible; exceptions —
some collateral reason for exclusion
o Affords the presumption against the commission of a crime; and
a) In Criminal Cases:
strengthens the presumption of innocence
1. the accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral
trait involved in the offense charged.
Weight:
2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which
o The influence of good moral character of the accused as evidence in criminal cases
is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged;
3. The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends depends upon the nature and circumstances of the crime charged and upon the
to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the probative force of the proof presented as to the circumstances of the crime charged
offense charged. and upon the probative force of the proof presented as to the guilt of the accused;
o For example, if the crime charged is one which involves cool deliberation and
b) In Civil Cases. Evidence of Good moral character of a party in a civil case is involved in the common and daily life of the accused, the same is strong; but when
admissible only when the issue of pertinent character is involved in the case. the crime is unusual that it must have been induced by motives not frequently
c) The character of Witnesses- in the case provided or in Rule 132, Section 14. operating on the accused’s mind, good character as an evidence is weak. Another
Two issues to be resolved in relation to character evidence: (W) example is that when the evidence of the crime is clear and convincing, character
evidence will not be of use

o An accused is not entitled to acquittal because of his good moral character and o e.g., character of chastity on the crime of rape; character for peaceableness
exemplary conduct alone or violence on the charge of assault; character for honesty on a charge of
embezzlement
2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the b) In Civil Cases. Evidence of Good moral character of a party
offense charged; in a civil case is admissible only when the issue of pertinent
character is involved in the case.
o “character involved in the issue” is a technical expression, which does not mean
The Prosecution is not allowed to initially attack the character of the accused Except simply that the character may be affected by the result, but that it is of a particular
when (concurrence of both): importance in the suit itself, as the character of the plaintiff in an action for slander
or that of a woman in an action for seduction
Reason for the rule: to prevent the prejudice that may be caused by the showing of bad o example:
character 1. action for defamation: bad reputation and character of the plaintiff would entitle
the plaintiff for lesser damages
First: it is in rebuttal 2. action for breach of promise to marry or alienation of affection: the plaintiff’s
o the purpose is to refute the claim that he accused has good character and thus to dissolute character may lessen entitlement to damages
prevent the court from drawing therefrom the inference that the accused is innocent 3. prosecution for keeping a bawdy-house or gambling house- reputation of the
of the crime charged house is the actual issue
4. in a case for seduction- the reputation and character of the woman is an issue
Second: when it is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charge
o having reference and analogy to the moral trait involved in the crime charged
o for example, the defendant’s character for truth is irrelevant in a case for attempted
murder
3. The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be

proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged.
Character of the offended party
o character of the offended party may only be proved if it tends to establish the
probability or the improbability of the offense charged
o must be related to the traits and characteristics involved in the crime
charged

RULE 131 SECTION 1 – BURDEN OF PROOF a. The suitor who relies upon a fact should be called upon to prove his own
cause
Section 1. Burden of proof. — Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence b. Prove own affirmative allegations
on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence 2. Burden of proof in a proceedings lies first on that party against whom the judgment
required by law. of the court would be given, if no evidence at all were produced on either side
o “onus probandi” refers to the obligation of a party to a litigation to persuade the

court that he is entitled to relief What need not be proved:
o the burden of proof lies with the party who asserts his/her right 1. those which are judicially noticed
o also called the risk of non-persuasion (W) 2. those which are admitted
3. those which are presumed
Burden of proof rule applies to both the plaintiff and the defendant
o It is inaccurate to state that the burden of proof lies only with the plaintiff because
the rules states not only of a claim but also of defense A. Civil Cases
o He who asserts or denies must prove
o Whoever asserts the affirmative of an issue is the party who has the burden to prove Negative Allegations
o general rule: they need not be proved
it
o Hence, the plaintiff always has the burden of proof for its positive o Exception: it should be proved when it is an essential part of the statement of the right or
assertions title upon which the cause of action or defense is founded
o On the other hand, the defendant: o Example: allegation of the plaintiff that the debt has not yet been paid must be
 in making affirmative defenses is not a denial of the plaintiff’s proven; plaintiff must show that in an action for damages, failure of the
cause of action but one which, if established, will be a good defendant to follow the plans must be proven;
defense as such is an avoidance of the claim o Exception to the Exception: if it is denial of the existence of the document, the custody
 in making his denials, he must also prove the same of which belongs to the other party, it need not be proved
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence Note that a negative allegation does not have to be proven unless the same is an essential
Never shifts and it remains exactly shifts to one party when the other has part of the cause of action or defense.
throughout the entire case exactly where produced sufficient evidence to be entitled  However, in civil cases, even if a negative allegation is an essential
the pleadings (complaint and answer) as a matter of law to a ruling in his favor part of the defense, such does not have to be proven if it is only for
placed it the purpose of denying the existence of a document which would
Civil cases – The burden is on the party Both civil and criminal cases – The burden properly be in the custody of the adverse party.
who would be defeated if no evidence were lies with the party who asserts an  If the criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation or that a
given on either side. Criminal cases – The affirmative allegation. negative averment is an essential element of the crime - the
burden is always on the prosecution. prosecution has the burden of proving the charge.
The burden of proof does not shift as it The burden of evidence shifts from party to  Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or
remains throughout the trial with the party party depending on the exigencies of the where the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of the
upon whom it is imposed. case in the course of the trial. accused, the onus probandi rests on him.
The burden of proof is generally The burden of evidence is generally
determined by the pleading filed by the determined by the developments of the
party. trial or by provisions of law. B. Burden of proof in Criminal Cases
Test for determining who has the burden of proof: The accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
1. Lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue Hence, the prosecution shall have the onus probandi of establishing the guilt of the
accused
4. NLRC: modified. Fredelito was declared an employee and shares in the commission and
separation pay awarded to Pedro; JJ’s and Jimenez are jointly and severally liable to pay
The Doctrine of Equipoise or Equiponderance Doctrine complainants their unpaid commissions (P84,387.05).
o Refers to the situation where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, or there
is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates (or weighs heavily). In this case ISSUE: WON NLRC correctly ruled that private respondents were not paid their commissions
the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof in full.
o Hence, where the burden of proof is with the plaintiff and the evidence does not
suggest that the scale of justivce should weigh in his favor, the court should render a RULING: YES. NLRC correctly ruled that the entire amount of commissions was not
verdict for the defendant paid.
o In a criminal case, where the evidence is evenly balanced, the Reason: evident failure of herein petitioners to present evidence that full
constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the payment thereof has been made
accused
o Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation. Since the
which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts an affirmative allegation, the plaintiff or
proof fails upon that issue (Rivera v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. complainant has to prove his affirmative allegations in the complaint and the defendant or
115625, January 23, 1998). respondent has to prove the affirmative allegations in his affirmative defenses and
o Finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of counterclaim. Considering that petitioners herein assert that the disputed commissions have
two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with then innocence been paid, they have the bounden duty to prove that fact.
of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence
does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even where the
certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction (Bernardino v. plaintiff must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the
People, 2006). defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove nonpayment. The
debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been
discharged by payment. When the existence of a debt is fully established by the evidence
contained in the record, the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment
1. Jimenez vs. NLRC – 256 S 84 devolves upon the debtor who offers such a defense to the claim of the creditor. Where the
debtor introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of going forward with the
evidence—as distinct from the general burden of proof—shifts to the creditor, who is
FACTS: then under a duty of producing some evidence to show nonpayment.
1. Private respondents Pedro and Fredelito Juanatas, father and son, filed a claim for unpaid
wages/commissions, separation pay and damages against petitioners JJ’s Trucking and/or Although private respondents admit receipt of partial payment, petitioners still have to present
Dr. Jimenez. proof of full payment. Where the defendant sued for a debt admits that the debt was originally
 Alleged that they were hired by Jimenez as driver/mechanic and helper, respectively, owed, and pleads payment in whole or in part, it is incumbent upon him to prove such
in JJ’s Trucking, where they were assigned to a 10-wheeler truck to haul Coca-cola payment. That a plaintiff admits that some payments have been made does not change the
soft drinks and paid on commission basis, initially at 17% later increased to 20%. burden of proof. The defendant still has the burden of establishing payments beyond
 That they received only partial commission (P84k) from JJ’s total gross income of those admitted by plaintiff.
almost P1M for 2 years. Consequently, there was unpaid balance of P106,211.86
2. Jimenez and JJ’s contend: In this case, petitioners failed to present evidence to prove payment.
 that Fredelito was not an employee of the firm but was merely a helper of his father;
 that all commissions were duly paid;
 that the truck driven by Pedro was sold to a third person, therefore, they were not
illegally dismissed. 2. Mallari vs. CA – 265 S 456
3. Labor Arbiter: ordered JJ’s and Jimenez to pay jointly and severally Pedro Juanatas a
separation pay. Complaint of Fredelito was dimissed for lack of merit. Facts:

st
67
1. Sometime on December 27, 1990Pat. Manipon and Pfc. Esguerra, who were both The latter is a negative fact which constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of
then assigned at the Capas Police Station, received reliable information that illegal possession, and it is the duty of the prosecution not only to allege it but also to
appellant Diosdado Mallari, who has a standing warrant of arrest in connection with prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal for Homicide in 1989, was seen at Sitio 14, Sta. Rita, Capas, Tarlac.
2. The police officers immediately proceeded to Sitio 14, Sta. Rita, Capas, Tarlac. In the case at bench, the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from the PNP
Upon reaching the place, the arresting officers surrounded the house of appellant, (FEU) that petitioner was not a licensee of the said firearm would have sufficed for the
arrested him and told him to remain stationary. Thereupon, the arresting officers prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of the crime of illegal
searched him and found a homemade gun (paltik) with one M16 live possession.
ammunition.
3. the petitioner was charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and
Ammunition, and pleaded not guilty on arraignment.
4. The RTC rendered a decision convicting the appellant guilty of Illegal possession of
Firearms and Ammunition. This was upheld by the CA. In its decision, the Court of
Appeals held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, Pfc. Manipon and
Pat. Esguerra "unequivocally proved that the handgun (paltik) and the live M16
ammunition were recovered from the person of the appellant (herein petitioner).
Hence, the present action by the appellant arguing, among all others, that even
assuming that the handgun and ammunition had in fact been found in his possession, the
prosecution failed to prove that he had no license therefor and absent this essential
element of the crime of illegal possession of firearms, it was manifest error for the Court
of Appeals to uphold his conviction. In other words, the prosecution failed to discharge
its burden of proving that he did not have the requisite license for the firearm and
ammunition found in his possession.
On the other hand, it is the position of the SOLGEN that as the firearm involved is a
homemade gun or "paltik" and is illegal per se. It could not have been the subject of license.
This, according to the Solicitor General, dispenses with the necessity of proving that petitioner
had no license to possess the firearm. Hence, it does not even attempt to show evidence on
record of petitioner's nonpossession of a license or permit for there really is no such evidence.
Issue: Who has the burden of proving that the appellant has no license?
In criminal prosecutions, the prosecution has the burden of proving all of the elements, even if
they are in the negative.
In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution has the burden of proving the
elements thereof, viz:
(a) the existence of the subject firearm and
(b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the
corresponding license or permit to possess the same.

Presumptions (b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of
o Assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires such fact to be the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (3a)
assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the
action
o It is not evidence and merely affects the burden of offering evidence Equitable Estoppel or Estoppel in Pais
o During the trial of ana action, the party whi has the burden of proof upon an issue
may be aided in establishing his claim or defense by the operation of presumption Estoppel is a principle rooted upon natural justice, preventing a person from going back upon
o Or the probative value of which the law attached to a specific state of facts his own acts and representations, to the prejudice of others who have relied on them
o Denies the person the right to repudiate his acts, admission, or representations which
Effect: have been relied upon by the person to whom they were directed and whose conduct
o a party in whose favour the legal presumption exists may rely on and invoke such they were intended to, and did, influence
legal presumption to establish a fact in issue
o one need not introduce evidence to prove the fact for a presumption is Elements on the part of the person estopped:
prima facie proof of the fact assumed (1) there must have been a false representation or concealment of material facts which
o It may operate against an adversary who has not introduced to rebut the presumption are inconsistent with the position taken and said party is subsequently asserting
(2) the representation must have been made with knowledge of the facts;
(3) must have been made with intention that the other party would act upon it
Classes of presumptions: (4) the party to whom it was made must have been ignorant of the truth of the matter
1. Presumption of Law or juris: deduction which the law considers as established from
the facts given Elements for the party claiming estoppel: one who was misled by the misrepresentation
2. Presumption of facts or hominis: deduction or inference which reason or experience
draws form other facts proved (1) lack of knowledge and the means of ascertaining the truth as to the facts in question
(2) reliance in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be estopped
(3) action or inaction based thereon of such character as o change the position or status
Classes of Presumption Juris of the party claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice
Conclusive presumption Disputable presumptions

Absolute presumptions of law which are Which suffices until overcome by
not permitted to be overcome by any proof contrary evidence (a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission,
to the contrary, however, strong intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true,
Considered as if it is not a presumption at and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such
all; it is substantive directing the rpoof of declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
certain basic facts conclusive
RULE 131. SECTION 2: CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS
example:
Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive 1. an accused who enters a plea of guilty under a wrong name is estopped form later on
presumptions: questioning the jurisdiction of the court over his person;
2. one who clothes another with apparent authority as his agent and holds him as such
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and in the public, cannot be permitted to deny the authority of such person to act as his
deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he agent to the prejudice of innocent third persons dealing with such agent in good faith
cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify and in honest belief that he is what he appears to be
it. 3. sale by minors of real estate who represented that they are capacitated, and if they
have reached the ages of puberty and adolescence then majority, cannot excuse
themselves form the obligations assumed by them or seek annulment
4. corporations by estoppel 3. RULE 131 SECTION 3 – DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
o the ROC sufficiently protects the lessor from being questioned by the lessee, (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
regarding his title or better right of possession as lessor because having admitted
the existence of lessor and lessee relationship, the lessee is barred from assailing  it is presumed that a person in innocent of a crime or wrong
the lessor’s title of better right of possession  it is applicable in criminal and civil cases
o for as long as the lessor-lessee relationship exists, the lessee cannot by any  however, there is no constitutional objection to the passage of a law providing that the
proof, however strong, overturn the conclusive presumption that the lessor presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon
has valid title or better right of possession human conduct
o it also applies even thought the lessor had no title at the time the relation
of the lessor and lessee was created
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
o why? Because the relationship between them is not dependent on the
ownership of the lessor but on the agreement between them
 example: publication of defamatory matter was done with malice presumably
Example:
1. in an action for ejectment, the plaintiff is presumed to be the owner of the property (c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
or that he at least, has the right to the possession, and he cannot be compelled, and
need not present evidence showing his ownership  hence, where an accused inflicts injuries upon a person other than the one whom he
a. the tenant then cannot deny the title of his landlord at the time of the intended to injure, he is liable for the act and all its natural consequences
commencement of the relation
2. in an action brought by the Catholic Church against the priest who was out in (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
possession to administer the property, the latter is estopped from alleging ownership
at the time he took possession either to himself or in a third person
 example, a person will not sell his land for 1/7 th of its value, and less thatn ½ of its
annual revenue unless the sale is intended to be made merely as a security
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
 failure to produce books and records in his possession gives rise to the presumption
that they would be adverse if produced
 failure of the prosecution to present evidence to refute testimony of appellant and his
witness, despite being able to do so because it had at its disposal the power to
compel production of adverse evidence necessarily constitutes an argument against
said prosecution
 party’s fraud in preparation and presentation of his case, his fabrication and
suppression of evidence
 production of fabricated documents
 not applicable when: (People vs Naranja)
a. the evidence is at the disposal of both parties
b. the suppression is not willful
c. it is merely corroborative or cumulative  it is to be presumed that the articles, goods, or chattels found in the store
d. suppression is an exercise of privilege of a corporation is owned by the corporation, not of any members thereof
e. failure to present witness listed in the information does not give rise to  continued occupation and use of public land by a municipality gives
such presumption presumption that such is owned through a government grant in its favor
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing
accordingly;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
 bad faith or wrong is not presumed

 hence, it may be shown that there is a mistake in the delivery or making of
the act. If the presumption is rebutted, there is solutio indebiti
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to
it;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;

 possession by the debtor of the private document evidencing the debt
raises the presumption tat the creditor voluntarily delivered the document
 when the law imposes certain duties and obligationsit will be presumed
to him; when creditor is in possession of the instrument, it is presume that
that such duties and obligation have been performed
the amount of the debt has not yet been paid
 how to rebut the presumption: it is expressly made to appear to the
 how rebutted: the delivery of the instrument may be shown to be done
contrary
demand payment and not to leave the instrument evidencing credit
o evidence of ill-motive
o clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later
properly perform their duty or that there was deviation from
one is produced;
their regular performance of business or that they were inspired
by an improper motive
 not applicable when the contracts are separate: by a contract separate o hence, defense of frame-up will require stronger proof because
and distinct form the contract of lease
of the presumption of regularity in the prefomance of duty
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
which a person possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
 it is established as a general rule, that where a court of general jurisdiction

section has 2 parts:
has exercised its powers, every step necessary to confer jurisdiction will
be presumed to have been taken in the absence of proof to the contrary
First: presumption from possession of stolen goods  when not applicable:
i. cannot apply in a petition for writ of amparo under Section 17 of
 unexplained possession of articles recently stolen creates the presumption the Rule of the Writ of Amparo
that the possessor is the author of the theft or robbery ii. People vs Camat: it is incumbent upon the prosecution to show
that that prior to questioning during the custodial investigation,
Second: presumption of ownership from possession or exercise of acts of all the constitutionally protected rights were observed
ownership
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the
court and passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue
raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators addressee as soon as it could have been transmitted to him in the ordinary
and passed upon by them; course of business
 Provided that:
 Where nothing appears in the record as to whether or not the accused was a. It is addressed properly
granted a preliminary investigation, it is presumed that the procedure b. It is mailed
prescribed by law had been observed
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular; absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of
succession.
 Settlements of accounts are presumed to be correct
 It is the duty of the contracting parties to learn and know the contents of The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till
the contract before signing and delivering it after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an
absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the
estate among the heirs:
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft

(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient
with is missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss
consideration;
of the vessel or aircraft;
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the

(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed
instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated;
hostilities, and has been missing for four years;
(u) That a writing is truly dated;

(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other
circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four
 Dates written in the written instrument are presumed to be correct and that years;
such instruments are presumed to have been executed at the times
indicated by the dates they bear
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the
 It does not apply however, in the following:
spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has
a. Does not apply where a deed is offered to support an action against
well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already death. In case of
one who is neither a party nor privy to it
disappearance, where there is a danger of death the circumstances
b. May not be invoked in forged instrument or if there is fraud or
hereinabove provided, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient
collusion
for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in
c. May not be invoked also for truth of collateral facts such as for
any case, before marrying again, the spouse present must institute a
example, the presence of alleged signers
summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in the rules
for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
the mail;
b. Why? Springs from necessity of settling property rights and status
 When a letter or other mail matter is addressed and mailed with postage c. This disputable presumption arises only until the expiration of the
prepaid there is a rebuttable presumption of fact that it was received by the seventh or tenth year, or fifth or fourth year

d. It is invoked either in an action or in a special proceeding which is (2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the
tried or heard by, and submitted for decision to a competent court celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been
e. Independently of such action or special proceeding, the presumption conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the
cannot be invoked, not can it be subject of an action or special three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage.
proceeding
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was the nature;
conformable to the law or fact;
 Hence, a person proven to be insane or sane is presumed to be such until
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the contrary is proven
ordinary nature habits of life;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of
copartneship; (gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by
public authority, was so printed or published;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage; (hh) That a printed or published book, purporting contain reports of cases
adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published, contains
 Every intendment of the law of fact leans toward the validity of marriage, correct reports of such cases;
the indissolubility of the marriage bonds
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is
marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest;
without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage, has been obtained by
their joint efforts, work or industry. (jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the
same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not died first, and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be
capacitated to marry each other and who have acquire properly through their inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from
actual joint contribution of money, property or industry, such contributions the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences
of credit are equal. 1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to
have survived;
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another
marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former 2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have
marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: survived;
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the 3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is
solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been deemed to have survived;
conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the
three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. 4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the
male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be the same, the older;

5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those
ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to Section 4. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy . — There is no presumption of
succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of legitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or
one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall the separation of the spouses. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child
be considered to have died at the same time. (5a) must prove his allegation. (6)
other presumptions under law and jurisprudence:
a) Art. 1387 of the Civil Code: All contracts by virtue of which the debto alienates
property by gratuitous title are presumed to have been entered into in fraud of
creditors, when the donor did not reserve sufficient property to pay all debts
contracted before the donation.”
a. Also when there is alienation of property by onerous title made by a debtor
against whom some judgment has been rendered in any instance or some
writ of attachment has been issued . from the tenor of law, the decision or
arrangement need not refer to the property alienated and need not have
been obtained by the party seeking rescission
b) A judgment or final order against a person, redender by a tribunal of a foreign
country with jurisdiction to render said judgment is presumptive evidence of a right
as between parties and their successors-in-interest
a. Unless it be shown that: (a) there is want of jurisdiction; (b) want of notice
to the other party; (c) collusion; (d) fraud; (e) clear mistake of law or fact
c) Common carriers are presumed to be negligent and at fault when there is injury or
damage to passengers or goods
d) It is presumed that when a driver is in violation of a law, he is negligent
e) Res ipsa loquitur:
a. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
someone’s negligence
b. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
defendant or defendants
c. The possibility f contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff
responsible is eliminated
General Rule on Presumptions

o Presumptions are not admissible, except when the fact form which they are deduced
are fully proved
o No presumption can, with safety, be drawn from another presumption

1. Nicanor Navidad entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a “token”
Lozano vs. De Los Santos – 274 S 44 (representing payment of the fare), who was at this time drunk.
2. While standing on the platform near the LRT tracks, Escartin (security guard
1. The petitioner Reynaldo M. Lozano filed Civil Case for damages before the MTC assigned to the area) approached Navidad.
against respondent Anda alleging that they were presidents of their respective PUJ 3. A misunderstanding or altercation apparently ensued that led to a fist fight and later
Associations using the Mabalacat- Angeles route; Navidad fell on the tracks. At that exact moment, an LRT train, operated by
a. That they have agreed to consolidate their associations and elect one set of petitioner Roman, was coming in.
officers who shall govern the consolidated association. 4. Navidad was struck by the moving train and was killed instantaneously.
b. That they had an election wherein the petitioner won as president. 5. Thereafter, respondent Marjorie Navidad, along with her children, filed a complaint
c. Alleging fraud, Anda protested and refused to recognize the results of the for damages against Escartin, Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization,
election and to abide by their agreement, and continued to collect the dues and Prudent Security Agency for the death of her husband.
from the members of his previous association despite several demands to 6. The trial court rendered a decision finding Escartin and Prudent Security liable to the
desist heirs of Navidad, but dismissing the complaint as against the LRTA and Roman.
2. Private respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, claiming 7. Upon appeal, the CA exonerated Prudent from any liability and instead found the
that jurisdiction was lodged with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). LRTA and Roman solidarily liable, explaining that a contract of carriage already
this motion to dismiss was denied by the MTC. existed when Navidad entered the place where passengers were supposed to be after
3. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC finding that the paying the fare, and that Roman failed to establish the fact that the application of the
dispute is intra-corporate in nature, hence, subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC. emergency breaks could not have stopped the train.
4. Among the arguments of the private respondent was the doctrine of corporation by 8. Hence, this appeal.
estoppel, hence, for the present action, it must be considered as an intracorporate LRTA: That it was Escartin’s assault upon Navidad which caused the latter to fall
case. on the tracks; that such was an act of a stranger that could not have been foreseen or
prevented.
Issue: Should the doctrine of Corporation by estoppel apply?
Issue: Should the LRTA be held liable? Yes
Ruling: No.
Controlling Issue: was the petitioner able to rebut the presumption of negligence occasioned
Corporation by estoppel is founded on principles of equity and is designed to prevent injustice by the death of passenger Navidad?
and unfairness.19 It applies when persons assume to form a corporation and exercise corporate
functions and enter into business relations with third persons. Where there is no third person Ruling: The LRTA was not able to rebut the presumption of negligence based on the civil
involved and the conflict arises only among those assuming the form of a corporation, who code.
therefore know that it has not been registered, there is no corporation by estoppel.
Ratio: the Civil Code States:
Hence, the conclusive presumption of presence of corporate entity that will bind the parties Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
acting for such association will not apply. presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that
they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.
The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely using the utmost diligence of
very cautious persons with due regard for all circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to
5. LRT vs. Natividad – 397 S 75 provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not only during the course of the trip but for so
long as the passengers are within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to the
Transpo case to guys! Disputable presumption of negligence on common carriers if there is contract of carriage. The statutory provisions render a common carrier liable for death of or
injury to passengers or damage to goods.  injury to passengers (a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees or b) on
account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carriers
FACTS: employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or
omission.

2. Delsan vs C&A Construction
In case of such death or injury, a carrier is presumed to have been at fault or been
negligent, and by simple proof of injury, the passenger is relieved of the duty to still FACTS:
establish the fault or negligence of the carrier or of its employees and the burden shifts
a) On October 9, 1994, M/V Delsan Express, a ship owned and operated by petitioner
upon the carrier to prove that the injury is due to an unforeseen event or to force
Delsan Transport Lines, Inc., anchored at the Navotas Fish Port for the purpose of
majeure. In the absence of satisfactory explanation by the carrier on how the accident
installing a cargo pump and clearing the cargo oil tank.
occurred, which petitioners, according to the appellate court, have failed to show, the
b) At around 12:00 midnight of October 20, 1994, Captain Demetrio T. Jusep of M/V
presumption would be that it has been at fault, an exception from the general rule that
Delsan Express received a report from his radio head operator in Japan that a
negligence must be proved.
typhoon was going to hit Manila in about 8 hours.
c) At approximately 8:35 in the morning of October 21, 1994, Capt. Jusep tried to seek
There is no such showing of proof, in the present case, to rebut and overcome the presumption
shelter at the North Harbor but could not enter the area because it was already
of negligence to common carriers.
congested. At 10:00 a.m., Capt. Jusep decided to drop anchor at the vicinity of Vitas
mouth, 4 miles away from a Napocor power barge. At that time, the waves were
already reaching 8 to 10 feet high.
d) Capt. Jusep ordered his crew to go full ahead to counter the wind which was
dragging the ship towards the Napocor power barge. To avoid collision, Capt. Jusep
monitoring of consistent compliance with the rules. Corollarily, in Ramos v. Court of Appeals,
ordered a full stop of the vessel. He succeeded in avoiding the power barge, but
the Court stressed that once negligence on the part of the employees is shown, the burden of
when the engine was re-started and the ship was maneuvered full astern, it hit the
proving that he observed the diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees shifts
deflector wall constructed by respondent. The damage caused by the incident
to the employer.
amounted to P456,198.24.
In the case at bar, however, petitioner presented no evidence that it formulated rules/guidelines e) Respondent demanded payment of the damage from petitioner but the latter
for the proper performance of functions of its employees and that it strictly implemented and refused to pay. Consequently, respondent filed a complaint for damages with the
monitored compliance therewith. Failing to discharge the burden, petitioner should therefore RTC.
be held liable for the negligent act of Capt. Jusep. f) In its answer, petitioner claimed that the damage was caused by a fortuitous event.
So also, petitioner cannot disclaim liability on the basis of respondents failure to allege in its RTC: complaint filed by respondent was dismissed. The trial court ruled that petitioner was
complaint that the former did not exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its not guilty of negligence because it had taken all the necessary precautions to avoid the
employees. In Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos, it was held that it is not accident. Applying the emergency rule, it absolved petitioner of liability because the
necessary to state that petitioner was negligent in the supervision or selection of its employees, latter had no opportunity to adequately weigh the best solution to a threatening
inasmuch as its negligence is presumed by operation of law. Allegations of negligence against situation. It further held that even if the maneuver chosen by petitioner was a wrong move, it
the employee and that of an employer-employee relation in the complaint are enough to make cannot be held liable as the cause of the damage sustained by respondent was typhoon Katring,
out a case of quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. which is an act of God.
CA: the decision of the trial court was reversed and set aside. It found Capt. Jusep guilty
of negligence in deciding to transfer the vessel to the North Harbor only at 8:35 a.m. of
October 21, 1994 and thus held petitioner liable for damages.
Hence, the present action by the petitioner.

Argument of the petitioner: No negligence on the party of Capt. Jusep hence, it cannot be
held vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code because respondent failed to
allege in the complaint that petitioner was negligent in the selection and supervision of its
employees.

Granting that Capt. Jusep was indeed guilty of negligence, petitioner is not liable because Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
it exercised due diligence in the selection of Capt. Jusep who is a duly licensed and competent acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
Master Mariner, and was able to rebut the presumption of negligence as an employer. business or industry.
xxxxxxxxx
ISSUE/S: (1) Whether or not Capt. Jusep was negligent; (2) If yes, whether or not petitioner is The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
solidarily liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the quasi-delict committed by Capt. prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
Jusep?
Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly
arises a presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi
patris families in the selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando) of
RATIO:
its employees. To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by his employee, an
employer must overcome the presumption by presenting convincing proof that he
exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in
FIRST ISSUE: YES.
There is negligence on the part of the employee, Capt. Jusep. In the case at bar, the CA
was correct in holding that Capt. Jusep was negligent in deciding to transfer the vessel only at First: selection of the employees and
8:35 in the morning of October 21, 1994. As early as 12:00 midnight of October 20, 1994, he
Second: supervision of his employees
received a report from his radio head operator in Japan that a typhoon was going to hit Manila
after 8 hours. This, notwithstanding, he did nothing, until 8:35 in the morning of October 21, In the present case, the petitioner failed to prove the second requisite. The defense raised
1994, when he decided to seek shelter at the North Harbor, which unfortunately was already by petitioner was that it exercised due diligence in the selection of Capt. Jusep because the
congested. The finding of negligence cannot be rebutted upon proof that the ship could not latter is a licensed and competent Master Mariner. Such is not enough. It is not enough that the
have sought refuge at the North Harbor even if the transfer was done earlier. employees chosen be competent and qualified, inasmuch as the employer is still required to
exercise due diligence in supervising its employees.
When he ignored the weather report notwithstanding reasonable foresight of harm, Capt. Jusep
showed an inexcusable lack of care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have So also, petitioner cannot disclaim liability on the basis of respondents failure to allege in its
observed in the same situation. Had he moved the vessel earlier, he could have had greater complaint that the former did not exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its
chances of finding a space at the North Harbor considering that the Navotas Port where they employees. Allegations of negligence against the employee and that of an employer-employee
docked was very near North Harbor. Even if the latter was already congested, he would still relation in the complaint are enough to make out a case of quasi-delict under Article 2180 of
have time to seek refuge in other ports. the Civil Code.
2ND ISSUE: should the petitioner shipping company then be held liable for the negligence
of its employee, Capt. Jusep?
Ruling: Yes.
we find petitioner vicariously liable for the negligent act of Capt. Jusep. Under Article
2180 of the Civil Code an employer may be held solidarily liable for the negligent act of
his employee. Thus
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed in Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts
or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
xxxxxxxxx

iii. a republican form of government cannot survive long unless a limit is
6. People vs. De Guzman – 229 S 795- MEDRANO placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence reposed in
each governmental department or agent by every other such
FACTS: department or agent, at least to the extent of such presumption.
1. Accused-appellant de Guzman has been in the watch list of the police authorities as a
prohibited drug peddler. On 2 occasions, they tried to entrap him without any success. On The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of
the third time, the police officers succeeded in their buy-bust operation. irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is
2. Pat. Manzon posed as a Metro Manila aide. Together with a confidential informant, he overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the
casually approached de Guzman and asked if he could “score” (buy) a deck of “shabu.” presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in
De Guzman informed him that a deck would cost P50. Manzon then handed the accused a support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer’s act being lawful or
previously marked P50 bill. In exchange, the accused gave him an aluminum foil unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.
containing crystalline granules. Manzon scrutinized the contents of the foil and then
executed the prearranged signal to his companion, Patrolman Chiapoco. The accused was In the case at bench, what is clearly established is that the drug pushing activities of the
forthwith arrested by Pat. Chiapoco. The accused was frisked and the search yielded 4 accusedappellant have long before been brought to the attention of the police authorities and
aluminum foils containing white crystalline granules. Accordingly, Manzon and that accusedappellant had been the subject of a continuing surveillance. There is not an iota
Chiapoco executed a Joint Affidavit of Apprehension leading to the arrest of de Guzman. of evidence that the police authorities who apprehended accusedappellant had any ill-
A Chemical analysis report confirmed that the 5 aluminum foils contained motive against him. The records clearly show that accusedappellant was finally caught in
methylamphetamine hydrochloride. flagrante delicto selling “shabu”, a regulated drug, without authority. He was rightfully
3. Consequently, an information was filed against de Guzman. convicted.
4. RTC: de Guzman-guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of unlawfully selling
shabu.
5. Hence, this appeal. De Guzman faults the TC for favoring the arresting officers with
the disputable presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty.
He urges that this presumption no longer subsist for certain irregularities were
committed by the two officers in the discharge of their duty, (1) Chiapoco did not
read the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension before signing it; and (2) the police 7. People vs. Navaja – 220 S 624- PASCUAL
bungled its 2 previous operations against him.
FACTS:
ISSUE: WON the TC erred in favoring the arresting officers with the disputable presumption 1. Alexander Navaja was the object of a buy-bust operation conducted by the Anti-
of regularity in the performance of their official duty. Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section (ANDDRUS) of the Cebu City Police Station.
2. At the time the poseur buyer signaled to his companions after the completed transaction
RULING: NO. The trial court correctly gave the apprehending officers the presumption with Navaja, the same was able to evade arrest and get away with the buy bust money.
of regularity in the performance of their duty. 3. The police, however, were able to get his name from people in the neighborhood.
4. The evidence confiscated (the item bought from Navaja) was submitted for field test
A disputable presumption has been defined as a species of evidence that may be accepted examination. The same were found positive for marijuana.
and acted on where there is no other evidence to uphold the contention for which it 5. A warrant of arrest was issued against Navaja and the same was subsequently
stands, or one which may be overcome by other evidence. apprehended.
 One such disputable/rebuttable presumption is that an official act or duty has been 6. During trial, the prosecution presented Pfc. Ranulfo Espina, a member of the team
regularly performed. which conducted the buy-bust operation, and the regional chemist and chief of chemistry
o Presumption of this nature is indulged by the law for the following to identify the pieces of evidence as positive for marijuana.
fundamental reasons: 7. The trial court convicted the accused Navaja finding him guilty of selling a prohibited
i. innocence, and not wrongdoing, is to be presumed; drug in violation of the DDA, relying on the affirmative testimony of Pfc. Espina and
ii. an official oath will not be violated; and his positive identification of the accused.
8. Hence this appeal.

9. Navaja contends that although Epsina had 5 other companions, none of them were
presented as a witness; moreover, their non-presentation was not sufficiently explained. 8. People vs. Castañeda – 252 S 247- SALTERAS
He concludes that the companions’ testimonies would have been adverse if presented in
court. Facts:
(1) the accused-appellant Castañeda was charged with the crime of Robbery with Rape. The
ISSUE: WON there is a presumption of adverse testimony because of non-presentation of the private complainant, Eugenia Sese alleged that she was at home with her children and her
other team members (for reason the same constitutes “suppression of evidence”). home is well lit by three kerosene lamps and the moon was bright that night.
 That at about 10pm n the evening, she went outside of their house to
RULING: NO. The non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does not constitute expose their ampalaya leaces to dewdrop outside.
suppression of evidence and would not be fatal to the prosecution's case. Besides, there is no  That in no time, an intruder grabbed the complainant and poked a knife at
showing that the other peace officers were not available to the accused for the latter to present her neck with his right hand and demanded money
as his own witnesses.  That since she had no money, they had to go inside the house and get
money from the apador
The rule is settled that the adverse presumption from a suppression of evidence is NOT  That the robber not satisfied with the measly amount, ordered her to pull
applicable when: down her pants and raped her
(1) the suppression is not willful,  He then disappeared into the darkness.
(2) the evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative, (2) Private complainant woke up her children and sought help from Mariano Apolinar and
(3) the evidence is at the disposal of both parties and his wife, Apong Gunding. The house of Apolinar is forty (40) to fortyfive (45) meters
(4) the suppression is an exercise of a privilege. away from her house. She recounted her ordeal to them but sealed her lips about the
threat. Apolinar, in turn, summoned Barangay Captain Ponciano Cunanan and
 There is no rule of evidence which requires the presentation of a specific or minimum Councilman Rodolfo Manaloto. She retold her story to the barangay officials, who
number of witnesses to sustain a conviction for any of the offenses described in the decided to report the matter to the police authorities.
Dangerous Drugs Act. It is the prosecuting fiscal's prerogative to determine who or how (3) It was 11:00 p.m. The barangay officials walked with private complainant to the police
many witnesses are to be presented in order to establish the quantum of proof necessary headquarters in Concepcion, Tarlac. On their way, she saw a man wearing red shorts and
for conviction. In this case, the prosecution deemed it sufficient to present Pfc. Espina white striped shirt passing in front of a lighted house near the boundary of barangays San
alone since any other testimony which would have been given by the other members Jose and Sta. Maria. She recognized the man as the one who robbed and raped her. She
of the buy-bust team would be merely corroborative in nature. pointed him to Mariano Apolinar. When they approached him, it turned out to be the
accused appellant.
Furthermore, (4) During the trial,
Peace officers presumed to have done their duty.  The defendant was trying to establish the alibi that he was with his
brother-in-law’s birthday party and stayed there
The accused was seen—not caught as he had escaped—in flagrante as a result of the buybust  On the other hand, the prosecution presented among all others, the
operation. In such an operation, what is important is the fact that the poseurbuyer received the Barangay Tanod, that private complainant told him that she could not
marijuana from the accused and that the same was presented as evidence in court. This Court identify the person who robbed and molested her. She described the
has consistently held in drug cases that absent any proof to the contrary, law enforcers are criminal to be tall, thin, with a tie around his head, and that the suspect
presumed to have regularly performed their duty. In the instant case, there exists no such belonged to the Llarves family.
contrary proof. Accused has not presented evidence of any ulterior motive that could have (4) The RTC convicted the accused appellant of the crime of robbery with rape. This
moved Ranulfo Espina to testify against him. The rule is also settled that in the absence of was upheld by the CA.
evidence that would show why the prosecution witness would testify falsely, the logical
conclusion is that no improper motive existed and that such testimony is worthy of full faith
and credit.
Hence, the present action by the appellant, contending among others that, he was misidentified
as barangay tanod David testified that the culprit was described by private complainant as tall,
slim, and a Llarves. Allegedly, this description was given in the presence of barangay officials

who were not called as witnesses by the prosecution. He charges the prosecution with d. Almost simultaneously @ NENE handed to Sgt. Directo a transparent
suppression of evidence. plastic bag containing what appeared to be shabu. Upon her receipt
thereof, Sgt. Directo raised her right hand which was the prearranged
Issue: May the presumption on suppression of evidence apply in the present case? signal to her coteam members that she had already concluded the purchase
of shabu.
Ruling: No. 2. By reason of this operation, the appellant- accused were arrested and eventully
charged with the conspiracy in the sale and delivery of .17 gram of “shabu” in
The contention cannot succeed. The rule on suppression of evidence cannot be invoked by violation of Section 21(b), Article IV, in relation to Section 15, Article III of
accusedappellant where the same evidence is available to him. In the case at bar, accused- Republic Act No. 6425.
appellant could have subpoenaed the barangay officials who allegedly heard the description of 3. During the trial of the case: the following were presented:
the culprit given by the private complainant. These barangay officials were not under the a. For the prosecution: officers who conducted the buy-bust operation were
control of private complainant, a lowly housewife in barangay Sta. Maria, Concepcion, Tarlac. presented and established the abovementioned narration of facts;
It is far fetched to accuse her and the prosecution of suppressing their testimonies. b. For the defense: the accused appellants gave completely different
versions of the operations as expected. They made it appear that the a
Moreover, their testimonies could only be corroborative. In People v. Lorenzo,22 we held that certain Angel which they have known for a long time was the person who
the presumption laid down in Section 5(e), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court that “evidence was buying and that NENE merely gave the shabu she did not own. The
willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced” does not apply when the testimony of the money she had given to Elvie was actually payment for the wristwatch she
witness not produced would only be corroborative. bought.’
4. After evaluating the conflicting testimonies of the parties, the RTC gave more
weight to the testimonies of the officers than that of the accused appellants and
stated that:
9. People vs. Simbulan – 214 S 537 – ARANETA “x x x, in the course of their testimonies, the Court was intently observing the
prosecution witnesses, particularly Sgt. Directo and Lt. Sindac, and the Court was
Abstract: a buy bust operation was done and the accused Simbulan and Suguui were impressed by their candidness and straightforward manner of testifying, which in the
eventually convicted by the courts for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. They were found mind of the Court indicated that they had testified truthfully. As a matter of fact, Lt.
guilty heavily based on the testimonies of the officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Sindac, who is only 27 years (old) had impressed the Court that he is a professional
The accused questioned the credibility of the said officers, but the SC held the presumption of whose only concern is to do his job and to do it well. x x x.”11
regularity in the performance of their duties because of the absence of proof of evidence to the
contrary or having done so by improper motives.
hence, the present action of accused appellants, questioning mainly the credibility of the said
1. The Buy- Bust Operation: officers in giving their testimonies.
a. a male informant came to the office NARCOM and relayed to Lt. Reuben (di na na-specify sa case kung ano yung mga questions talag sabi lang, credibility of the
Sindac the information that NENE (Irene Simbulan) and ELVIE (Elvira witnesses, which is exactly why, natalo ang mga accused)
Sugui), herein accused, were engaged in the selling of shabu at
Masangkay St., Makati, Metro Manila. Issue: Was the lower court correct in giving more credence and weight to the testimony of the
b. Finding this information to be viable (to use his own word), Lt. Sindac officers?
submitted to Lt. Col. Raval of the NARCOM a preoperation report. Lt.
Col. Raval approved the said preoperation report and directed Lt. Sindac Ruling: Yes.
to constitute a team and conduct a buybust operation.
c. Upon reaching the house of NENE the informant knocked on the door and The narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses are worthy of credit. They are
when NENE opened the door and came out, he introduced Sgt. Directo as police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner,
a person wanting to buy shabu. there being no evidence to the contrary,and more so since there is nothing in the record
which would indicate that they were actuated by improper motives.

Furthermore, we have perforce to once again reiterate the entrenched rule that the matter of
assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed
by the trial judge, who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in the light of
the declarant’s demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more
competent position to discriminate between the true and the false.7 Appellate courts will not
disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimony of witnesses
unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the
facts and circumstances of significance in the case.8
In the case at bar, we find nothing which would warrant deviation from the general rule.

HELD: Yes.
10. People vs. Baludda – 318 S 503-
RATIO: Under the Rules of Evidence, it is disputably presumed that things which a
FACTS:
person possesses or over which he exercises acts of ownership, are owned by him.
The version of the prosecution as summarized by the Solicitor General, runs thus:
(1) In the morning of September 24, 1990, C1C Mauro Camat was at Sitio Dangdangla,
In U.S. vs. Bandoc, the Court ruled that the finding of a dangerous drug in the house or within
Barangay Cardis, Bagulin, La Union together with other members of the Civilian Armed
the premises of the house of the accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus
Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU), a regular unit of the Philippine National Police
possidendi and is enough to convict in the absence of a satisfactory explanation.
composed of civilian volunteers, when they received information about people passing by
the area carrying huge quantities of marijuana. The CAFGU units Commanding Officer, In cases of possession, the burden of proving the knowledge or animus possidendi is
First Lieutenant Manuel de Vera, immediately ordered Camat and his companions to shifted to the defense, as an exception to the presumption of innocence rule.
patrol the area.
 The constitutional presumption of innocence will not apply as long as
(2) The following day, the police officers encountered appellant Baludda together with
there is some logical connection between the fact proved and the ultimate
Maximo Baludda, Domingo Atebew and Ben Baristo carrying sacks on their backs. The
fact presumed, and the inference of one fact from proof of another shall
encounter with appellant and his companions took place in a forested area on the
not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. The burden of
mountain of Sitio Dangdangla and it was noticed that the sacks they were carrying were
evidence is thus shifted on the possessor of the dangerous drug to explain
bulging.
absence of animus possidendi.
(3) About five (5) meters away from appellant and his companions, Camat halted them and
introduced themselves as CAFGUs. However, upon being told that the CAFGU unit In the case under consideration, it is not disputed that appellant was apprehended while
merely wanted to see what was in the sacks they were carrying, appellant and his carrying a sack containing marijuana. Consequently, to warrant his acquittal, he must show
companions ran away except for Maximo Baludda who stayed behind. that his act was innocent and done without intent to possess, i.e. without knowledge that what
(4) Although Ben Baristo and Domingo Atebew were able to elude arrest, appellant and he possessed was a prohibited drug.
Maximo Baludda were apprehended. The sacks carried by appellant and his companions
(1) Appellant theorized that he merely acceded to the request of Maximo Baludda, his uncle,
were opened and found to contain marijuana leaves.
to carry the sack without knowing that it contained marijuana. As ratiocinated below, it is
(5) The accused appellants were then apprehended by the CAFGU and charged with the
contrary to human experience that a man, 32 years of age, would readily agree to carry
crime of Illegal Possession of Marijuana.
the load of his uncle, without even knowing the place where to deliver such load, and
The defense theorized as follows: without asking, while negotiating a forested area, how far is their destination and how
long it would take them to reach the place, especially so because when they were
2. That on January 7, 1991, the four accused were charged under SECTION 4 of R.A. 6425 as
apprehended at around 5:00 in the afternoon, they had already been walking for around three
amended on the strength of the complaint of the PC arresting team.
(3) hours.
3. Meanwhile, also, Mateo Baludda filed a complaint of frustrated murder and robbery against
Alberto Bacasen and Camilo Bacasen who shot him on that same incidence before the
Provincial Fiscal of La Union. (2) Worse still for appellant is the undeniable fact that he and his companions, except Maximo
Baludda, fled towards different directions after the police authorities announced their
On the other hand, the defense was trying to establish that the sacks containing the confiscated
presence. If appellant had nothing to do with the transporting of subject prohibited drugs, or if
marijuana were not theirs and they were brought by the police agents themselves and had no
he really had no knowledge that the sack he carried contained marijuana, there would have
knowledge of such. They are also trying to establish that they had no knowledge that the sacks
been no cause for him to flee. If he had to run at all, it would have been more consistent with
they are carrying contains marijuana.
his protestation of innocence if he ran towards, and not away from, the police officers.
On January 13, 1994, after trial, the lower court upheld the Peoples version, on the basis Obviously, what appellant did removed any shred of doubt over his guilt; exemplifying
of which it handed down the judgment of conviction appealed from. the biblical adage: The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are as bold
as a lion.
ISSUE/S: WON accused-appellant, Mateo Baludda took part in the alleged sale or transport of
the subject marijuana.
Section 2: The entire proceedings of a trial or hearing, including the questions propounded to
RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE a witness and his answers thereto, the statements made by the judge or any of the parties,
counsel, or witnesses with reference to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or
A. EXAMINITION OF WITNESSES stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court.
I. Examination to be done in open court A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the official stenographer, stenotypist, or
recorder and certified as correct by him shall be deemed prima facie correct statement of such
SECTION 1. The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in proceedings.
open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or
question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.
RULE 132 SECTION 3 – RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS
GR: examination of witness should be done in open court (IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-
Excpt: testimonies, which need not be made in open court INCRIMINATION)
a) Under the Rules of Summary Procedure, the affidavits of the parties shall
constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses Section 3. Rights and obligations of a witness. — A witness must answer questions,
b) Depositions need not be taken in open court and may be taken before a although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. However, it is the right of a
notary public or before any person authorized to administer oaths witness:
When is it in open court? (1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from harsh or
 The act done publicly in the presence of the judge and the other officers of insulting demeanor;
the court, as opposed to “in chambers”
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require;
Reason for the rule:
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue;
 To enable to the court to judge the credibility of the witness by the
witness’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, and their appearance
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law; or
Must be made under oath or affirmation
Oath Affirmation
(6) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very
Any form o attestation by which a person Solemn and formal declaration or assertion fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness
signifies that he is bound in conscience to that the witness will tell the truth must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense.
perform an act faithfully and truthfully; substituting oath
outward pledge made in other rights:
Why? a) any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right
 To affect the conscience and if he willfully falsifies the truth, he may be punished for to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
perjury counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of a
 He will be barred if he refuses to take oath or affirmation counsel, he must be provided with one. There rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of a counsel.
General Rule: must be made orally b) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this shall be inadmissible in
EXCPT: evidence against him
 witness in incapacitated to speak c) No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
 question calls for a different mode of answer d) in all criminal proceedings, the defendant is entitled to be exempt from being a
witness against himself
How does a witness appear in court

(1) voluntarily or general rule: the witness has the obligation to answer even if such answer may be a claim
(2) as required by the court through a subpoena against himself. EXCEPT in the following cases:
RULE 132 SECTION 2: PROCEEDINGS TO BE RECORED

(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a latter was no longer able to do so because he was sick of tuberculosis. He started
plowing the following morning at 6:00 o’clock and ended at 9:00, after which he and
penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
his uncle went hunting with a licensed .22 caliber rifle.
5. Judge Ricardo P. Galvez of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City acquitted
Federico Sadava for lack of evidence of conspiracy but found Henry Salveron guilty
Right against Self- incrimination
as charged.
 the right of the accused to be exempt from being a witness against himself is due to
the abhorrence with which confession coerced by inquisitorial torture were regarded
Hence, the present action by the appellant Henry Salveron: arguing among all others that the
in all civilizes countries
paraffin test violated his right against self-incrimination.
 public policy and humanity
 it would place the witness under the strongest temptation to commit perjury, and to Ruling: did the police officers violate the right of the accused against self incrimination when
prevent the extortion of confessions by duress he was subjected to a paraffin test?
 an accused may totally refuse to take the witness stand; but a mere witness may not
do so completely. Before he refuses to answer, h must wait for the incriminating Ruling: No. such rule only applies in testimonial evidence.
question
The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is
a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from
No self-incrimination in the following: him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material.
a) a witness admitted into the witness protection program cannot refuse to testify or
gve evidence or produce books, documents, or records or writing necessary for the Furthermore, even if the paraffin tests were not admitted, the assumptions he protests are
prosecution of the offense or offenses for which he has been admitted on the ground merely corroborative of the principal evidence of the prosecution, which is the testimony of
of the right against self incrimination Gregorio, that is the positive identification and actual seeing of the commission of the crime.
b) the court may compel the accused to submit himself to a blood test/ DNA test
 right against self-incrimination is not violated because there is no testimonial
compulsion involving such tests 2. People vs. Malimit – 264 S 167 (supra)
Facts:
1. People vs. Salveron – 228 S 92
5. Appellant Malimit was charged with the special complex crime of robbery with
Facts: homicide of the victim Malaki.
1. Raul Salveron was shot to death inside a bus by a passenger who escaped and has 6. During trial, it was established by the accounts of the two witnesses Batin the home
not been arrested to date. A few weeks later, Jesus Dalida waskilled in his house cook of Malaki and by Rondon, a neighbor that:
under mysterious circumstances that have yet to be unraveled. Mauricio Dumangas a. One night of April 1999, when Malaki was attending to his store, Batid
was luckier: he too was attacked with apparent intent to kill but survived to accuse proceeded to the said store to ask if he was to prepare supper. Much to his
his attackers. surprise, he saw the appellant Malimit coming out of the store with a bolo,
2. The killing was imputed to the herein appellant, Henry Salveron, the son of the late
while his boss was bathing in his own blood on the floor.
Raul Salveron, in an information for murder filed against him and Federico Sadava.1
This is the case now before the Court. b. Rondon, who was outside and barely five (5) meters away from the store,
3. During the trial, the prosecution presented as a witness: also saw appellant Jose Malimit rushing out through the front door of
a. Captain Nicanorito Gomez, station commander of the Integrated National Malaki's store with a bloodstained bolo. Rondon clearly recognized
Police branch at Balasan, testified that after conducting an investigation of Malimit
the killing, he and his men went out to look for Salveron and Sadava and 7. Decision of the trial court: the trial court convicted Malimit with the special
were informed that they had gone to Camansi, Anilao, Iloilo, about 100 complex crime of robbery with homicide and was sentenced with the penalty of
kilometers away. The team proceeded to this place and there found the
two, who willingly went with them to the PC headquarters at Camp reclusion perpetua.
Delgado, Iloilo city.4 There, the suspects were subjected to a paraffin 8. Hence the present action by the appellant Malimit. Among all others to support his
test by Zenaida Sinfuego, a forensic chemist, who said she found them prayer for acquittal, he argues that the admission as evidence of the victim’s wallet
both positive for gunpowder residue. with its contents, and a bunch of keys violates his right against self- incrimination.
4. The defense pleaded alibi. According to Salveron his uncle Romeo Salveron fetched
him on March 21, 1986, so he could work at his farm in the town of Anilao as the
Issue: May the appellant invoke the right against self-incrimination to the admission of object RULE 132 SECTION 4 – ORDER IN THE EXAMINATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL
evidence? WITNESS
Ruling: No.
Section 4. Order in the examination of an individual witness. — The order in
which the individual witness may be examined is as follows;
The right against selfincrimination guaranteed under our fundamental law finds no application
in this case. It is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the [accused]'s own (a) Direct examination by the proponent;
lips, against his will, admission of his guilt. It does not apply to the instant case where the (b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
evidence sought to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object evidence. (c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
Wigmore, discussing the question now before us in his treatise on evidence, thus, said: (d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.
If, in other words (the rule) created inviolability not only for his [physical
(by the proponent) on behalf of the opponent to support the latter's
control of his] own vocal utterances, but also for his physical control in tand; it should cover all the facts which the party expects to elicit from
whatever form exercise, then, it would be possible for a guilty person to shut direct
direct the witness
examination
examination
himself up in his house, with all the tools and indicia of his crime, and defy
the authority of the law to employ in evidence anything that might be obtained (by the opponent) to weaken or discredit the testimony given on the
by forcibly overthrowing his possession and compelling the surrender of the direct examination; purpose is to bring the truth of the facts testified in
cross
cross
evidential articles — a clear reduction ad absurdum. In other words, it is not examination the first stage
examination
merely compulsion that is the kernel of the privilege, . . . but testimonial
compulsion
(by the proponent) to rebut the cross examination
re-direct
re-direct
Furthermore, the Miranda Rights will also not apply as to the admissibility of evidence as examination
examination
violations of Miranda rights will only have the effect of making the extrajudicial confession or
admissions during custodial investigation inadmissible. (by the opponent) to refute the matters disclosed in the direct
re-cross
re-cross examination
examination
examination
Hence, in the present case, even if indeed he was not informed of his rights, these
constitutional shortcuts do not affect the admissibility of Malaki's wallet, identification card,
residence certificate and keys for the purpose of establishing other facts relevant to the crime.
Thus, the wallet is admissible to establish the fact that it was the very wallet taken from Kinds of Examinations of Witnesses:
Malaki on the night of the robbery. The identification card, residence certificate and keys a. Direct Examination
found inside the wallet, on the other hand, are admissible to prove that the wallet really b. Cross Examination
belongs to Malaki. c. Re-direct examination
d. Re-cross examination
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that these pieces of evidence are inadmissible, the same Section 5. Direct examination. — Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of
will not detract from appellant's culpability considering the existence of other evidence and a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
circumstances establishing appellant's identity and guilt as perpetrator of the crime charged.
First. Direct Examination
Definition
 This is the examination-in-chief of a witness by a party presenting hiom on the
facts relevant to the issue
 Procedure for obtaining information from one’s own witness in an orderly
fashion
 It is the information that the counsel wants the court to hear

 Firs interrogation or examination of a witness, on the merits, b the party on
whose behalf he is called What is the effect if there is no cross examination without the fault of the opposing
party?
Second. Cross Examination  It is considered as incomplete and hence, not admissible in evidence. It may
stricken off the record.
Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent. — Upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated Effect of Death or absence:
in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test (1) if the witness dies before his cross examination is over, his testimony on the direct may
his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all- be stricken out only with respect to the testimony which was not covered by the cross
important facts bearing upon the issue. examination
(2) if the witness was not cross-examined because of causes attributable to the cross
Definition examining party and the witness had always made himself available for cross
 Examination by witness by the adverse party after said witness has given his examination, the direct testimony of the witness shall be in the record and cannot be
testimony on direct examination stricken off record because the cross examiner is deemed to have waived his right to cross
Scope examine such.
 Not confined with matters stated in the direct examination and is granted a wide
latitude and leeway for cross examination of a witness Third: Re-direct Examination
 Adverse party may elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue, even if not
embraced in the direct examination, without making him a witness of the party on Section 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and extent. — After the cross-examination of
whose behalf the cross examination is being done the witness has been concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling him, to explain or
o Thus, if a part of conversation or transaction ahs ben disclosed in direct supplement his answers given during the cross-examination. On re-direct-examination,
testimony, the remainder, so far as it is relevant, may be called out during questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination, may be allowed by the court
the cross examination in its discretion.
o As the inquiry in the answer may tend to impeach, rebut, explain, or
qualify the testimony which has already been given Purpose
Exception:  Examination by the party who called the witness for direct examination conducted
 An accused who testifies on his own behalf may be cross-examined only on matters after the cross examination of the witness
covered by his direct examination  Affords the witness to explain or amplify the testimony which he has given on cross
examination and to explain any apparent contradiction or inconsistency in his
“RULE 115, Section 1. (d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to statement, an opportunity which is not ordinarily accorded to him during his cross
cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in examination
any manner prejudice him.”  To correct or repel any wrong impression or inferences that may have been created
in the cross examination
 Also be the opportunity to rehabilitate the credibility of the witness challenged by
Purpose and Value the cross examination
 (1) CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS: By means of this, the situation of the
witness, with respect to the parties and to the subject of litigation, his interest, his Scope
motive, his inclination and prejudices, his means of obtaining a correct and certain
knowledge of the fact to which he bears testimony, the manner in which he has used  Ordinarily confined to the matters as to which the witness was cross examined
those means, his powers of discernment, and submitted to the consideration of the  It should not extend to collateral matters which have not been touched upon in the
court before whom he has testified, and who has this had an opportunity of cross- examination unless, allowed by the court in its discretion
observing his demeanor, and of determining the just weight and value of his
testimony Example, when the witness was asked about a certain conversation during the cross
 (2) to bring out facts favourable to counsel’s client not established during the examination, on re-direct, the witness may be examined as to the details of such conversation
direct testimony
 This is also in accordance with Section 14 (2) of Art. III of the Constitution
which provides that the accused shall enjoy the right to meet the witnesses face to Fourth: Re-Cross Examination
face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of the witness and the
production of evidence ion his behalf
Section 8. Re-cross-examination. — Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the The case was reset on various dates but Mr. Kaplin failed to appear because he had left
adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, for abroad.
and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. 5. the employee’s association filed a motion praying among all other that the testimony of
Mr. Joseph Kaplin be stricken from the records
Definition: 6. the CIR judge then dismissed the petition of the bus company and ordered the
 This is the examination conducted upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination reinstatement of the driver Jacob to service.
 The adverse party may question the witness on matters stated in his re-direct
examination and also on such matters as may be allowed by the court in its Hence, the present action by the herein petitioner arguing that The respondent court erred in
discretion dismissing the petition of the herein petitioner, after ordering the testimony of Joseph Kaplin
to be stricken off the record, notwithstanding the fact that the service records of Maximo
Scope: Jacob, upon the basis of which his dismissal could be justified were admitted by it.
Proper exclude
(1) matter which was opened upo on direct (1) matters which were not aopend up or Issue: Was the CIR correct in ordering that the testimony of Mr. Kaplin be stricken off record
examination brought out, on redirect examination because he was not cross examined?
(2) or as to a new mater which was (2) matters already fully covered, or
brought out on re-direct examination discussed at length on cross Ruling: Yes.
(3) or which is designed to test the examination
credibility of the witness or testimony (3) matters with respect to which the (1) “The right of a party to confront and crossexamine opposing witnesses in a judicial
elicited on re-direct examination wintess was examined on direct litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative
examination tribunals with quasi judicial powers, is fundamental right which is part of due process.”
(4) or as to which there was an (2) In the present case, Petitioner presented only one witness, Joseph Kaplin, to prove its
opportunity to cross examine him, case against driver Jacob. The witness failed however to appear at the scheduled hearings
where there is no claim of oversight, for his cross examination for the simple reason that he left for abroad. Having been
and there is no reason stated why the deprived, without fault on its part, of its right to crossexamine Kaplin, respondent
matter was not inquired into during association was entitled to have the direct testimony of the witness stricken off the record.
the cross examination proper (3) Why this rule? “Oral testimony may be taken into account only when it is complete,
B. that is, if the witness has been wholly crossexamined by the adverse party or the right to
crossexamine is lost wholly or in part thru the fault of such adverse party. But when
cross examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to
the party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered
1. Bachrach Motors Co. Inc. vs. CIR – 86 S 27 incompetent.
Facts: Would not the documents presented which were admitted be enough?
1. In 1958, Bachrach Motor operated under the name Rural Motors.
 In that year the Rural Transit Employees Association went on strike and the dispute Ruling: no.
between the management and the union reached the Court of Industrial Relations for
compulsory arbitration. The opposing party was still entitled to crossexamine the witness on the matters written on
2. While this labor dispute was pending with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) Exhibits “1” to “8F” especially if they adversely affected the substantial rights of the party
Bachrach filed a “Petition for Authority to discharge driver Maximo Jacob from the against whom they were being presented, namely, driver Maximo Jacob. When Atty. Santiago
service”, dated July 24, 1961. The reasons given for the petition were alleged violations admitted that the signature appearing in Exhibits “1” to “8 F” was that of witness Kaplin, the
of the Motor Vehicle Law by Maximo Jacob resulting in damage to property and injuries counsel of petitioner then, Atty. Joven Erurile, should have inquired if the party was admitting
to third parties. likewise the veracity of the contents of the documents; not having done so, petitioner must
3. The petition of Bachrach was heard on January 23, 1963, during which petitioner now suffer the consequences.
presented its one and only witness, Mr. Joseph Kaplin, general manager of Rural Transit,
and various documents marked as Exhibits “l” to “8F” inclusive. Mr. Kaplin testified on Inasmuch as the testimony of Joseph Kaplin is stricken off the record and the contents of
the contents of the said exhibits. Exhibits “1” to “8F” are hearsay, and there is no other evidence which substantiates the
4. After Mr. Kaplin concluded his direct testimony, with agreement of the parties, the charges against Maximo Jacob, the dismissal of the company’s petition to discharge Jacob
hearing was scheduled for another date for purposes of crossexamination of the witness. from its service is in order.

In relation to the knife: The claim of threat or intimidation through the use of a knife merits
2. People vs. Padero – 226 S 810 scant consideration
(1) As admitted by the complainant during the crossexamination, she allegedly saw it
Topic: Significance of cross-examination for the first time when she was roused from her sleep and she noticed the accused on
top of her, holding the knife in his right hand.
(2) In this position, the accused could only be facing down at her. However, on direct
Facts: examination, she declared that when she saw him wielding a knife and holding her
(1) Jocelyn Cadeliña, a sixteenyearold lass and a resident of sitio Amalao, barangay Tagpo of arm, “[h]e was lying down, faced [sic] up
Bais City, charged Henry Padero, her uncleinlaw, with the crime of rape armed buy a (3) From then on she was silent about the knife. Although she distinctly remembered
knife by means of force and intimidation that the accused did not stand up immediately after the sexual act, that thereafter
(2) The prosecution presented as its witnesses complainant Jocelyn Cadeliña and Cherryl both of them sat down for a while, and that later the accused went down to the
Palacios for its evidence in chief, and Clara Cadeliña, Rev. Lemuel Felecio, and Damiana ground floor to sleep, she did not mention anything more about the knife.
Cadeliña on rebuttal.
(3) The accused took the witness stand in his defense and presented Loreta Samane, Elsa Conclusion: We therefore have serious doubts on the guilt of the accused for the crime
Garcia, Macrina Padero, and Marietta Padero as his witnesses. charged.
 The accused was trying to establish that in act, he and his niece, the complainant
were in an illicit love affair and the date alleged to be the date when the rape
happened was just one of the few times they have had sexual intercourse as lovers.
Hence, there was no rape because Jocelyn consented to all of them.
(4) The decision of the RTC: found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Giving full
faith and credit to the version of the complainant who it said testified “with sincerity,
honesty and candidness, and with answers direct to the point, in a logical and
straightforward manner, and free from inconsistencies.”
Hence, the present action arguing that the lower court erred in giving credence to the
testimony of complainant jocelyn ‘joy’ cadeliña considering that it is contrary to common
human knowledge and experience and this is highly improbable.
The issue of whether or not there was rape in this case was resolved through the SC’s
method of revisiting the direct and the cross examination of the complainant when she
was put into the witness stand. The SC deemed such as necessary because the credibility of
the complainant was being questioned.
Ruling: there was no rape. The accused not only was able to show their relationship and
consent to the sexual intercourse, but that the complainant witness herself, by her
testimonies during the cross examination, established such.
(1) we find enough evidence of the intimate relationship between the complainant and the
accused. On crossexamination, she admitted that the accused used to sleep in the unit of
the house which she rented from his mother.
(2) And, as further testified to by her on crossexamination, she declared that the accused
usually came to her rented unit every weekend since June 1991 and slept there despite
the fact that the house of his mother is only nearby.
(3) Also, her conduct during and after coitus unmistakably discloses absence of even token
resistance and betrays her consent to the sexual congress.
(4) In one salient portion of the crossexamination, we find her totally submissive in the face
of the assault against her most prized possession and unusually observant of the
preparatory acts of the accused and his eventual physiological and emotional
transformation in fulfilled libido.

RULE 132. SECTION 9. RECALLING WITNESS Example:
Leading question: was the dog white or brown?
Section 9. Recalling witness. — After the examination of a witness by both sides has been Appropriate question: what is the color of the dog
concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or
withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may require. Example #2: the issue was whether the victim was killed in 1989 as contended by the
prosecution. There was no positive proof that the killing of the victim was done in 1989. All of
the questions of the prosecution were made in the following form:
Recalling Witness
 recalling witness is a matter of judicial discretion 1. do you remember in one of the months of 1898 to have seen a certain Vicente?
 in its exercise of discretion, the judge shall be guided by the interests of justice and 2. At that time, that is in 1989, do you know in what barrio Vicente lived in?
may be limited by, aside from rules of admissibility and competence, the rule that 3. In what way were you acquainted with Vicente in 1989 when that affair happened?
the witnesses must not be subject to any unnecessary delay, inconvenience, or The prosecuting attorney was trying to lead the witness with reference to the time when the
expense crime was committed.
 if the court is not satisfied by the evidence adduced in criminal cases, he may, on his
own motion, call additional witnesses or recall some of the same witnesses, for the Example #3: what were the names of those two persons who went into your house at the time
purpose of questioning them himself and satisfying his mind with reference to when mr. Mariano Vicente was there?
particular facts
Situation: prior to this question, there had been no intimation by question or answer that
two persons or any other number of persons had entered the house on the occasion when
RULE 132 SECTION 10 – LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS Vicente was taken.
Section 10. Leading and misleading questions. — A question which suggests to the witness When should it be raised?
the answer which the examining party desires is a leading question. It is not allowed, except:  The question must be raised during the trial and the objection must be made
immediately after each suggestive question; failure to do such prevents the court
(a) On cross examination; from taking note the said issue
(b) On preliminary matters; How is it determined?

 The law prohibits all suggestive questions, but not those the purpose of which is to
(c) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness discover the truth of the facts that occurred an dit authorizes the judge to rely upon is
who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute; discretion and good judgment in deciding on the relevance and propriety of the
questions which may have been put to the witness, to the end that, in passing
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or judgment, he may be enabled to administer strict justice with rectitude and
impartiality.
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of
a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse
party. Definition of Misleading Question: It is not allowed. Absolutely.
A misleading question is one which:
A misleading question is one which assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or (1) Assumes as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness, or
contrary to that which he has previously stated. It is not allowed. (2) Contrary to that which he has previously stated.
Definition
 a leading question is one that is framed in such a way that the question indicated to 1. People vs. Caparas – 111 S 68
the witness the answer desired by the party asking the question
 suggestion plays an important part and may affect heavily the testimony of a witness Facts:
such that:
a. it may increase the errors of his evidence The present case involves to motions for reconsideration, but in relation to our topic, the
b. influences the value of the reply to the question motion for reconsideration filed by accused appellant Caparas is what is relevant. The accused
 it creates an inference in his mind, causing him to testify in accordance with the appellants were charged with the crime of the murder of Simeon Paez and the prosecution was
suggestion conveyed in the question trying to show the conspiracy exisiting between the accused appellants.

1. As regards appellant Caparas, the motions for reconsideration seek the review of the
testimonies of the two principal witnesses, Laureano Salvador and Lydia Posadas, “Q What else transpired?
upon which said appellant was convicted, on ground of conspiracy between him and “A I asked him what he meant by easy and he said ‘it is easy under this condition’, and I asked
Diamsay. him what condition, and he said ‘you kill him’.
2. Caparas points out some facts and circumstances which are alleged to impair the
credibility of the aforesaid witnesses and thereby leaves the fact of conspiracy “Q During all that time, who were present inside that house?
unproven beyond reasonable doubt as it should be. “A Tisio Diamsay.
3. Thus, Caparas points out that Laureano’s testimony was extracted through leading
questions. “Q Who else?
“A Eufemio Caparaz, sir.
Here is the transcript: (feel ko papaidentify ni sir saan yung leading questions and “Q Anybody else?
will be asked to reformulate the questions) “A Carling Gregorio, sir.
“Q Do you know the purpose of Carlos Gregorio in coming to your house? “Q And you?
“A Yes, sir. “A I was present.
“Q What was his purpose? xxx

“A Regarding the landholding I was farming and his help I requested.
“Q Now, in the vernacular, in Tagalog Language that you have been testifying, you said,
“Q Did you go to any place with Carlos Gregorio after that? Patayin n’yo, means plural, do you know to whom this word n’yo’ referred to?
“A Yes, sir. “A He was ordering me, Carling, and Tisio Diamsay, sir.
“Q Where? “Q Ordering to what?

“A To his house. “A To kill.
Q: ‘ You are referring to the house of Carlos Gregorio? ‘Q “Q To kill Simeon Paez?
“A Yes, sir. “A Yes, sir.”
Xxx
“Q When you arrived at the house of Carlos Gregorio, who were with you? Issue: were the question of the prosecutor leading to the effect that the credibility of the
“A Carlos Gregorio, sir. testimony of the principal witness be questioned?
“Q Who were the persons, if any, that you have seen at the house of Carlos Gregorio? Ruling: Yes.
“A Eufemio Caparaz and Diamsay, sir. Xxx
Ratio: We are constrained to agree that the testimony of Laureano on the supposed conspiracy
“Q Now, when you arrived in that house, what happened? was elicited by means of leading questions, the probative value of which, according to
“A We talked regarding the landholding, sir. accepted legal authorities, is thus diminished or lessened.
“Q You said, ‘we’, to whom are you referring? “The probative value of a witness’ testimony is very much lessened where it is obtained by
“A Eufemio Caparaz, sir. leading questions which are so put that the witness merely assents to or dissents from a
statement or assertion of an examining consul put with such vocal inflection as to be a
“Q What did you talk about that landholding? question.”
“A Regarding the landholding which he said would be given to me. He said there is already
one.
“Q And what did you answer when this was said to you by Eufemio Caparaz?
“A I said, ‘if there is, I give thanks’, but he said that the land he was giving me had some
trouble.
“Q And what did you say?

“A I said that seems hard’, but he said, ‘that is easy’.
RULE 132 SECTION 11—IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTY’S WITNESS  For the testimony of a witness to merit credit, it is indispensible that it be not
incompatible with his other statements as well as the o
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. — A witness may be impeached by
the party against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general Examples of credibility of the witness being impeached:
reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other (1) in a case for murder, a witness testifies on direct examination that he was barely 5 meters
times statements inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by evidence of particular away from the accused when the victim was shot.
wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of  Impeaching the witness: The prosecution may show that indeed, the witness was
the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense. several miles away, by raising during the cross examination whether he was in a
wedding miles away on that date. If the witness denies the fact that he was in the
wedding, the opponent may show contrary evidence of the witness’ whereabouts
(e.g., pictures, other testimonies).
What is impeachment? (2) A complainant who declared that she lost consciousness but was able to narrate the detail
surrounding the rape is not credible.
 Contradiction of a witness in two possible significations:
1. charge or accusation of want of veracity Examples of situations when the credibility of the witness was not affected:
2. establishment of the said chard (1) discrepancies between the actual and recorded serial numbers of the marked
 it is an attack against the credibility of the witness and constitutes as a challenge to a moneys during the buy-bust operation are plainly nothing but clerical errors and
witness’ veracity do not warrant that the recording of numbers was not made prior to the buy-
 imports the destruction of a witness’ involving not only the attack on the testimony bust operation
but also the credibility of the witness (2) discrepancies between the affidavit and the testimony in court in relation to
minor details does not constitute sufficient ground to impeach the credibility of
said witness
Modes of Impeaching a Witness:

When should issues impeaching the credibility of the witness must be raised?
(1) by contradictory evidence  The imputation challenging or charging the testimony of the witness (e.g., receiving
reward from the party on whose behalf he is testifying) should be raised during the
(2) by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or cross examination to impeach his credibility. In the absence of such, his testimony
must be taken as any other testimony with the presumption of trustfulness as it was
(3) by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his govern under oath.
present, testimony,
but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, RULE 132 SECTION 12—PARTY MAY NOT IMPEACH HIS OWN WITNESS
(4) except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of
the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense. Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. — Except with respect to witnesses
referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party producing a witness is not
allowed to impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon
Contradictory Evidence (see laying the predicate) adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled
the party into calling him to the witness stand.
How is this done?
 Usually, fairness demands that the matter subject of the impeachment be brought The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an adverse party, may be
during the cross examination of the witness by allowing the witness to admit or deny impeached by the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse
a matter sued as the basis of impeachment party, except by evidence of his bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-examined
by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his
 And this declaration made by the witness is the basis of the introduction of the
examination-in-chief.
contradictory evidence
 May also be used to contradict the conclusions of the expert witness by calling
another witness
Who may impeach a witness?

She brought as one witness on the to establish that the said document was signed by the
General Rule: defendants.
 Impeachment of a witness is to be done by the party against whom the witness
is called On the other hand, one of the defendants denied having signed the said document.
o As a general rule, the party producing the witness is barred from
impeaching his own witness Hence, constrained to prove the plaintiff’s assertion that they indeed signed the document
o Hence, even if the would appear that the testimony of the party’s themselves and to contradict the statements made by one of the defendants, the plaintiff called
witness is adverse to the proponent, the proponent is bound to the witness stand one of the other defendants as rebuttal evidence.
Exceptions:
(1) Section 10 (d): Unwilling or hostile witness as determined by the court When the said defendant was called to testify, he was asked to sign 3 times. The opponent
(2) Section 11 (e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or objected arguing that such constitutes a cross examination on his own witness.
managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association
which is an adverse party. The objection was overruled considering that the trial court found that the witness is hostile
and is an adverse party.
Example of the general rule:

 Plaintiff, as assignee of the insolvent corporation, brought an action for collection of RULE 132 SECTION 13 – HOW WITNESS IMPEACHED BY EVIDENCE OF
a sum of money against the defendant representing his unpaid subscriptions to the INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS
capital stock of the corporation. Defendant was produced as witness by the plaintiff.
Applying the general rule, the plaintiff was bound by the assertions of the Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. — Before a
defendant that he signed the instrument of subscription with the understating witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent
that he would not be considered to have joined the corporation until he is able with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of
to send the money. Hence, the plaintiff could not contend that the defendant was the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such
unworthy of credit, especially where the testimony is uncontradicted. It must be statements, and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be
made clear that the witness was among the exceptions and the court must make a shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them.
finding as to such.
Requisites of “Laying the predicate”
Exception to the rule; when the Prohibition Against Impeaching his own Witness; When  The mere presentation of the prior declaration of the witness without the same
party not bound by adverse testimony of witness: having been read to him while testifying in court, will be insufficient for the
desired impeachment of his testimony.
(1) the witness is hostile who:  Hence laying the predicate is necessary: it is the process of cross-examining a
a. declared by the court as witness upon the point of prior contradictory statement, for the introduction of
b. showing his adverse interest or contradictory statements.
c. unjustified reluctance to testify or o it is the general rule that unless a ground is thus laid upon cross
d. have misled the party into calling him in the witness stand examination, evidence of contradictory statements are not admissible to
(2) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public impeach a witness
or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
How does one lay the predicate?
How is one’s own witness impeached if under the exceptions? (1) the alleged statements must be related to the witness including the
(1) Allowed to impeach the party presenting him in all respects as if he had been called by circumstances of the times and places and the person present. if the statements
the adverse party, using all the modes provided in Section 11. are in writing, it must be shown to him; and
 The adverse party may subject the witness to cross examination also (paano yun, (2) he must be asked whether he made such statements and also to explain them if
babaligtarin mo purpose ng cross examination?) he admits making those statements
How?
(2) EXCEPT: EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER. First, ask the witness to repeat or reaffirm his most recent statement
Second, relate to the witness his prior inconsistent statement
Example: Third, build up or highlight such inconsistency relating to the circumstances, persons, and
Plaintiff sought to recover a parcel of land alleging that she acquired by purchase the said land places
from the defendant as seen by in “Exhibit A” the deed of sale signed by the defendants. Fourth, ask whether he made such statement (or ask if he executed the document)

Why?
 to allow the witness to admit or deny and also to afford opportunity to explain the
same
 otherwise, it may be objected to on the ground of improper impeachment and would
generally be inadmissible

Cases:
1. US vs. Baluyot – 40 P 385

2. People vs. Relucio – 86 S 227

3. People vs. Winston De Guzman – 288 S 346

GENERALLY:
RULE 132 SECTION 14-- EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER OF WITNESS (1) the judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the time under examination,
so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses
Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness. — Evidence of the good character of a (2) The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and to be prevented from
witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached. conversing with one another until all shall have been examined.
Impeachment by Showing Bad Reputation WHEN NOT APPLICABLE:

 One of the ways to impair the credibility of the witness is to show his not so pleasing (1) Parties in a civil case who are entitle to be present during the trial
reputation. The prevailing rule allows his impeachment by evidence that he has a (2) An accused who has the right to confront the witnesses or the complainant
bad general reputation.
 However, evidence of such bad reputation must relate only to the following: Effect as to the admissibility of the testimony of the witness who stayed in court despite
(1) For truth order to exclude all witness from the court
(2) For honesty  Rejection or admission of testimony of Party remaining after order of exclusion is
(3) For integrity discretionary with the Court
 Hence, a witness may not be impeached by reason of his reputation being
troublesome and abrasive
Evidence of good character of witness
General Rule: evidence of good character of witness is not admissible
Unless the character of the witness has been impeached
 Note that this must be differentiated with the rule related to the accused introducing
evidence of his good character and the prohibition on the part of the accused to give
evidence of bad character unless as rebuttal by the prosecution
Impeachment of witness by evidence of wrongful acts
General Rule: impeachment of a witness by evidence of his particular

wrongful acts is disallowed RULE 132 SEC. 16—WHEN WITNESS MAY REFER TO MEMORANDUM
Section 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. — A witness may be allowed to
Except: in relation to his prior conviction of an offense through cross examination
refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his
and or by presenting the record of his prior conviction
direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time
when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the same was correctly written or
recorded; but in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the
adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross examine the witness upon it, and may read it in
evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such writing or record, though he retain no
recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly
stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with caution.
RULE 132 SECTION 15. EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF WITNESS
Section 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. — On any trial or hearing, the judge may
exclude from the court any witness not at the time under examination, so that he may not hear
the testimony of other witnesses. The judge may also cause witnesses to be kept separate and
to be prevented from conversing with one another until all shall have been examined.
NOTE THAT THIS RIGHT IS DISCRETIONARY

RULE 132. SEC. 17—WHEN PART OF TRANSACTION, WRITING OR RECORD RULE 132 SECTION 18—RIGHT TO RESPECT WRITING SHOWN TO WITNESS
GIVEN IN EVIDENCE, THE REMAINDER ADMISSIBLE
Section 18. Right to respect writing shown to witness. — Whenever a writing is shown to a
Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder, witness, it may be inspected by the adverse party.
the remainder admissible. — When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or
record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into
by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in RULE 132 SECTION 19 – CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS
evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence. Documentary Evidence in General (Review)
Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing or any

material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expression offered as proof of their contents. (n)
What is a documentary evidence?

Documents as evidence not only refer to writing but also any other material like objects as
long as it contains letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expression and offered as proof of their contents.
 RA 8792 gave recognition of the admissibility of electronic documents and
electronic data messages as evidence. It shall function equivalent to a written paper-
based document under existing laws.
 Offered as proof of their contents
Requisites of admissibility of document as documentary evidence:

6. the document must be relevant
7. the evidence must be authenticated
8. it must be authenticated by a competent witness
9. the document must be formally offered in evidence
10. it is competent as such document is not excluded by the rules of court or by law
(e.g., best evidence rule, hearsay, and parol evidence rule)
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
Section 19.Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence,

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

All other writings are private. purposes documents
3. Official cashbook kept by the 3. official printed blank form if not
disbursing officer of the signed, authorized, or approved
Why is it Necessary to differentiate the classes of documents? Coastguard and Transportation by the proper official
Department
First, for purposes of Admissibility: For the reason that there are various differences in the 4. An official receipt printed in
manner of proving the authenticity and the due execution of either class of document accordancw tiht eh standard
 notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document forms required by the
making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of the Government
authenticity thereof. 5. Legislative acts
 What is notarization: To certify or attest to (the validity of a signature on a 6. Parish records of birth proor to
document, for example) as a notary public. the promulgation Act. No 190
 Requirement of proving authenticity does not apply to a public document. 7. Certified copies of birth,
 Public documents enjoy a prima facie presumption of authenticity and regular marriages, and deaths, including
execution. those made by the parish priests
who continue to be official
Second, it may affect probative value: Probative value of the documents may also be custodian of the said records
affected: for example, generally, a TCT will prevail over a Deed of Sale, assuming that the 8. The record of private document
TCT was valid and regularly issued kept by the justice of the peace
courts during the Spanish regime
9. Residence certificates
What is Authentication
 Preliminary step in showing the admissibility of evidence Why the difference?
 Unless a document is authenticated, it will not be admitted without a prior The law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumes that they will
authentication discharge their several trusts with accuracy and fidelity, and therefore, whatever acts they do
in discharge of their public duty, may be given in evidence and shall be taken to be true under
General Rule: Presumption is that objects and documents presented in evidence are as a such a degree of caution as the nature and circumstances of each case may appear to require.
rule, counterfeit and it is incumbent upon the proponent of the document to show and
prove its authenticity
Unless: the document is self-authenticating
Note: But not last will and testaments although notarized
Public document Private document
Any instrument authorized by a competent Deed or instrument executed by a private Why?
official with the solemnities required by person, without intervention of a public The Rules specifically Section 1 Rule 75, states that:
law notary a or other person legally authorized,
by which document some disposition or NO WILL SHALL PASS EITHER REAL OR PERSONAL ESTATE INLESS IT IS
agreement is proved, evidenced, or set PROVED AND ALLOWED IN THE PROPER COURT. SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF
forth APPEAL, SUCH ALLOWANCE OF THE WILL SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AS TO ITS
DUE EXECUTION.
(b) Documents acknowledged before a All other writings (aside from (b) and (c)
notary public except last wills and are private.
testaments;
1. Joson vs. Baltazar – 194 S 114
(c) Public records, kept in the
Philippines, of private documents
Summary: lawyer who notarized a deed of sale although her notarial commission has already
required by law to the entered therein.
expired. She is guilty of malpractice and falsification of public documents
1. Official receipts issued by the 1. theater ticket
Board of public health 2. deed acknowledged before a
FACTS:
2. Burial permits issued by the justice of the peace who was not
1. This is a disbarment case instituted by Marciano Joson against Atty. Gloria M.
Government to be issued upon authorized to take
Baltazar-Aguirre. The charge is for the violation of the Revised Penal Code and
receipt of money for public acknowledgment of the
grave malpractice as a lawyer.
2. In his complaint, Marciano Joson alleged that on 10 July 1957, respondent Atty. Facts:
Gloria Baltazar-Aguirre notarized a deed of sale executed by complainant in favor of 1. Severo Sales owned an unregistered parcel of land in Bugallon, Pangasinan.
one Herminia Feliciano, but: a. He then mortgaged the said property to a certain Agpoon to secure a loan.
 at the time respondent Baltazar notarized the deed of sale, she b. The loan was not paid by Sales hence, Agpoon tried to enforce the
was no longer authorized to do so since her notarial commission mortgage.
had expired on 31 December 1956 and was renewed by her only 2. Sales, with the consent of his wife, Margarita Ferrer, donated nine hundred (900)
on 17 September 1957. square meters of the same property in favor of their daughter, petitioner Esperanza
3. respondent Baltazar did not deny that her commission as notary public had expired by the Sales Bermudez. The duly notarized deed of donation was presented to the
time she notarized the deed of sale but relaying as an excuse good faith as she had already Assessor’s Office on the day of its execution. But this was not registered with the
applied for the renewal of her notary commission, but it is just that the government employee Registry of Deeds.
in charge of such was not able to do so. 3. Agpoon tried to enforce on the mortgage because the loan was unpaid. To prevent
this, Gonzales and Sales entered into an agreement whereby Gonzales will be paying
ISSUE/S: WON the herein respondent is guilty of malpractice. the loan and in turn, they will execute a deed of sale over the said piece of land.
4. A document entitled “Deed of Sale” between Severo Sales and Leonilo Gonzales
HELD: YES. The herein respondent is guilty of malpractice. was registered with the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan.
5. During the Proceedings for the intestate estate Leonilo Gonzales, the land was
RATIO: excluded from the estate.
6. Sales then filed a complaint to nullify the deed of sale.
Under the foregoing case, respondent Baltazar's conduct must be similarly characterized as 7. The CFI rendered a decision in favour of Gonzales ruling that the deed of sale was
malpractice and falsification of a public document. valid. The CA upheld this decision.
8. Hence, the present action by the petition.
In a previous case, the Supreme Court has rendered a decision finding a lawyer whose notarial
commission has expired to be guilty of malpractice and
Main thrust of the issue: We take note of the fact that while the Deed of Donation was not
registered, the Deed of Sale was registered as evidenced by the notation made by Cipriano
WHY? Abenojar, Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan and the official receipt issued by the
Registry of Deeds.
Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and
renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Issue: could the deed of donation that is unregistered be considered as binding against
 Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely Gonzales and over the registered deed of sale?
upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a
private instrument. Ruling: The Deed of Donation could not bind Gonzales considering that the registered Deed of
 Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public Sale shows his title. (unregistered deed of donation cannot prevail over the registered deed of
interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires sale)
preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public
from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices 1. While the deed of donation is valid between the donor and the donee thereby
generally. effectively transmitting the rights to said property from Sales to his daughter, such
deed, however, did not bind Leonilo Gonzales, a third party to the donation. This is
At the time that she notarized the subject deed of sale, she has knowledge that her notarial because nonregistration of a deed of donation under Sec. 1 of Act No. 3344 does not
commission had already expired. bind other parties ignorant of a previous transaction, notwithstanding the provision
therein which petitioners invoke that “any registration made under this section shall
be understood to be without prejudice to a third party with a better right.”
2. Sales vs. CA – 211 S 858 2. Bermudez may not be a considered a third party being the daughter of the vendor
himself and the “better right” possessed by a third party refers to other titles which a
Summary: Severo Sales donated a parcel of land to his daughter, Esperanza evidenced by an party might have acquired independently of the unregistered deed such as title by
unregistered deed of donation. Gonzales, on the other hand, was claiming that he same parcel prescription.
of land was sold to him by Severo subsequently evidenced by a registered deed of sale. The
registered deed of sale “won” over the deed of donation although the latter happened first.
Issue no 2: is the deed of sale valid considering that the property is located in Pangasinan
and the document was executed in Tarlac?

Ruling: Yes. executed on January 7, 1972. His late father, Atty. Cleto P. Evangelista, notarized the subject
deeds.
1. The extrinsic validity of the deed of sale is not affected by the fact that while the
property subject thereof is located in Bugallon, Pangasinan where the vendors also Section 245 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads:
resided, the document was executed in San Miguel, Tarlac. What is important under Notarial Register. Every notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial
the Notarial Law is that the notary public concerned has authority to acknowledge register, wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as notary ; and he shall
the document executed within his territorial jurisdiction. supply a certified copy of such record, or any parts thereof, to any person applying for it
2. A notarial acknowledgment attaches full faith and credit to the document concerned. and paying the legal fees therefor. x x x.
3. It also vests upon the document the presumption of regularity unless it is impugned
by strong, complete and conclusive proof. Such kind of proof has not been presented Sections 246 and 247 of the same Code also require the notary public to forward his notarial
by the petitioners. register to the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the
province or city wherein he exercises his office for safekeeping.
By certifying true copies of the subject deeds, Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. engaged in
3. Lucente vs. Evangelista, Jr. – 396 S 627 an unlawful and deceitful conduct. He was not the notary public before whom said
documents were acknowledged and he was neither the custodian of the original copies
Summary: Certified true copies must be issued by the lawyer who acknowledged and thereof. The Records Management and Archives Office, Manila, certified that there was no
who has official custody of the same. Hence, atty. Cleto Jr. cannot do such for the copy on file of the Deed of Quitclaim notarized by respondents father. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of
documents notarized by his father, although he is a partner of the same. the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is
broad enough to cover any form of misconduct of a lawyer in his professional and personal
FACTS: capacity.
1. Winnie C. Lucente and Alicia G. Domingo charged Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. with
gross misconduct, deceit, malpractice and crimes involving moral turpitude for falsification of In this connection, we have consistently held that notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
public documents. routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are
2. Complainants alleged that respondent is the son of the late Atty. Cleto Evangelista, who qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily
during his lifetime notarized the ff: requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon
the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general.
a) a Deed of Quitclaim executed by some people surnamed Tan in favour of two Yareds,
involving a Lot in Salvacion, Ormoc City; and
b) a Deed of Absolute Sale involving the same parties It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without
3. On January 30, 1990, respondent Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. issued certified true copies further proof of the authenticity thereof. For this reason, notaries public must observe
of the said instruments. with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
- On the basis of the certified true copies of the subject deeds, the Register of
Deeds of Ormoc City issued on February 2, 1990 TCT No. 23889 in favor of
Asuncion T. Yared. 4. Yturralde vs. Azurin – 28 S 407
4. it appears that the respondent of the administrative case Atty. Cleto Evangelista, Jr. issued
the certified certified true copes of the subject deeds which became the basus of the FACTS:
Registration. However, he was not the lawyer ho notarized the said deeds, and it was rather, 1. This involves a suit to annul a deed of donation inter vivos, covering 10 parcels of land in
the father who did the same. Antique, executed by Carmen Yturralde (plaintiff Cipriano Yturralde’s sister), in favor of
defendant Consuelo Azurin, which deed plaintiff himself (a minister of Phil. Independent
Church), signed as a witness and which his nephew Apolonio also signed as witness at
plaintiffs instance.
ISSUE/S: WON respondent Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. is guilty of gross misconduct, 2. Plaintiff’s claim is that the execution thereof is tainted with fraudulent
deceit, malpractice and crimes involving moral turpitude for falsification of public documents. misrepresentation – that the document is merely one for the administration of properties,
HELD: Yes. not a donation.
3. Lower Court: dismissed the complaint; declared that the deed of donation is legal and
RATIO: Records disclose that Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. admitted having certified true valid; declared Consuelo Azurin as the owner of the donated 10 parcels of land.
copies of the Deed of Quitclaim executed on May 7, 1977 and the Deed of Absolute Sale

ISSUE: WON the LC is correct in declaring that the deed of donation is legal and valid 2. The two corporations conducted business through telephone calls and facsimile or
telecopy transmissions. Ssangyong would send the pro forma invoices containing the
RULING: YES! details of the steel product order to MCC; if the latter conforms thereto, its
A notarial document (a public document, therefore) is evidence of the facts in clear, representative affixes his signature on the faxed copy and sends it back to
unequivocal manner therein expressed. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity. Ssangyong, again by fax.
3. Ssangyong sent by fax a letter addressed to Chan (MCC Manager) to confirm
Court’s task now is to weigh the evidence with a view of ascertaining whether plaintiff has MCC’s order of 220metric tons of hot rolled stainless steel (rate of $1860 per MT).
made out a case conformably to the foregoing standard. Chan affixed his signature on the conforme portion.
4. Ssangyong forwarded to MCC a pro forma invoice containing the terms and
Plaintiff has not discharged his heavy burden of showing irregularity or defect in the conditions of the transaction, MCC sent back by fax the invoice bearing Chan’s
said document to overcome the presumption of regularity. conformity signature. The invoice states that payment would be made through an
irrevocable letter of credit (L/C) at sight in favor of Ssangyang.
Therefore, the lower court correctly declared that the deed of donation was properly executed. 5. Ssangyong placed an order with its supplier to accommodate MCC’s order.
 It is undisputed that plaintiff has been a priest of the Philippine Independent Church 6. MCC only managed to open a partial letter of credit, hence the order was split into
for a long time. He talks and writes Spanish very well. He knows how to read two (110MT each). After a series of communications, and for difficulty of MCC to
English. The judge below, who signed the decision and who had the opportunity to open an L/C, the rate was decreased to $1700 per MT and the order to only 100MT
observe plaintiff on the witness chair, gave the opinion that although plaintiff was per order.
already old and a little bit deaf, he was "fairly intelligent to say the least, and 7. MCC managed to open a L/C for 100MT and Ssangyong delivered. However, due to
definitely x x x not feebleminded." This is the man who claims to have been the prevailing price of the said steel at the decreased to $1500, MCC asked for a
misled by defendant Azurin. reduction for the remaining order. Ssangyong refused thru another letter. MCC no
 Moreover, if the intention of the Azurins were to palm off donation for mere longer replied.
administration, they would not have chosen such a time when not only plaintiff 8. Ssangyong filed a civil action for damages due to breach of contract against
but the latter’s nephew, a person also of mature age, were present. The ways of petitioner. In its complaint, respondent alleged that defendants breached their
fraud are such that it is unlikely that the Azurins would risk the success of their contract when they refused to open the letter of credit in the amount of
alleged nefarious scheme in the presence of those who, by the nature of things, are US$170,000.00 for the remaining 100MT of steel under their Pro Forma Invoices.
bound to protect the interests of a close relation. 9. After Ssangyong rested its case, MCC filed a Demurrer to Evidence.
 Defendant’s evidence is that said document was handed over to plaintiff. Even if the
Court conceded that he knows no English, the very title of the document must MCC: Ssangyong failed to present the original copies of the pro forma invoices on which the
have arrested his attention. The English word "DONATION" was there. That is civil action was based. Photocopies of the pro forma invoices presented to prove the perfection
the equivalent of the Spanish word "DONACIÓN", which, of course, he of their supposed contract of sale are inadmissible in evidence and do not fall within the ambit
understands. of R.A. No. 8792, because the law merely admits as the best evidence the original
fax transmittal.
Since the donation was made in a public document specifying the immovables donated,
and the conditions for the donation, and that acceptance thereof was made in the same Ssangyong: Relies on the Rules on Electronic Evidence. That the original facsimile
deed of donation, that donation should be given effect. transmittal of the pro forma invoice is admissible in evidence since it is an electronic
document and, therefore, the best evidence under the law and the Rules; that the photocopies
of these fax transmittals admissible under the Rules on Evidence because the respondent
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (as functional equivalent of documentary evidence) sufficiently explained the non-production of the original fax transmittals.
ISSUE: WON the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions are electronic
Read: MC Industrial Corp v Ssangyong GR 170633, October 17, 2007 evidence and admissible as such.
Facsimile are not considered as part of the Electronic Evidence as they are paper- based. RULING: NO. The terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document," as defined
under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission.
FACTS: Facsimile transmissions are not "paperless," but verily are paper-based.
1. Petitioner MCC is engaged in the business of importing and wholesaling stainless
steel products. One of its suppliers is the Ssangyong Corporation (Ssangyong), an Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not
international trading company with head office in Seoul, South Korea and regional the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible
headquarters in Makati City. as electronic evidence.

Since a facsimile transmission is not an "electronic data message" or an "electronic
document," and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with greater reason
is a photocopy of such a fax transmission not electronic evidence. In the present case,
therefore, Pro Forma Invoices, which are mere photocopies of the original fax transmittals,
are not electronic evidence.
However, since these documents are mere photocopies, they are simply secondary evidence,
admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130, Section 5. Given these norms, we find that
respondent failed to prove the existence of the original fax transmissions, and likewise did not
sufficiently prove the loss or destruction of the originals. Thus, cannot be admitted in evidence
and accorded probative weight.
The Court faulted the administrative body that created the IRR for the Electronic Commerce
Act for including therein “electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex
or telecopy," although the same was intentionally omitted during the drafting of the Electronic
Commerce Act.

RULE 132 SECTION 20 – PROOF OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT 2. When the genuineness and the authenticity of an actionable document have not been
specifically denied under oath by the adverse party (admitted or not denied)
Section 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered as 3. When the genuineness and the authenticity had been admitted
authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved 4. Document is not offered as authentic
either: 5. Private document notarized (already public, except wills)
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

1. Raz vs. IAC – 184 S 720
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
maker.
1. On August 7, 1972, Reva Raz and the original private respondent herein,
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. Encarnacion Villanueva entered into a Conditional Assignment of Rights and
Interests over a Foreclosure Judgment.
2. By virtue of the Conditional Assignment, Villanueva transferred all her rights and
A. if private document is offered as authentic interests in the said judgment to Raz in consideration of the sum of P75,000.00 to be
paid by the petitioner 3. The petitioner paid the first two installments, but refused to
 there is a need to prove its execution and authenticity pay the third which wassupposed to be due on August 7, 1974, on the ground that
 when is it claimed as such? When the document is offered to prove that the Villanueva had not complied with her obligation under their agreement.
document was truly executed by the person purported to have made the same 3. Petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against the private
o example, that the deed was actually executed by him or by his respondent.
brother, or whoever 4. In her answer, Villanueva alleged that it was the petitioner who had defaulted in her
payments to which she gave her a letter of demand to remind her of the obligation,
as well as another letter informing her of the rescission of the contract for she has
B. if private document is not offered as authentic thus given her just cause for the rescission of the agreement.
 To support her claim, Villanueva presented two letters she said she had sent
 needs only to be identified in court Raz, the first to remind her of the third installment that had not yet been paid
 when is it claimed as such? When the purpose is for the offeror to show that a and the second to tender her the refund of her earlier payments in view of the
certain document exists (e.g., I found this document at the table) rescission of their contract.
 During the trial of the case the authenticity of the Deed of Conditional Sale/
Assignment was admitted. The Deed bore the signatures of the parties in this
General Rule: Private documents must be authenticated through probing its due execution case.
and genuineness through any of the following means:
5. According to the petitioner, the two letters allegedly sent to her by the private
1. by anyone who sat the writing executed; respondents should not have been admitted in evidence not only because there was
2. by a subscribing witness; or no proof that she had received them. No less importantly, their genuineness had not
been established by the private respondent invoking Rule 132 Section 19 (failing to
 in these two modes, the witness relies on her personal knowledge and attests to prove the genuiness of the handwriting of the maker or by a witness)
the genuineness of the document because it was executed or signed in his
presence ISSUE/S: WON the two (2) letters are admissible as evidence.
3. by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker HELD: YES. The two (2) letters are admissible as evidence considering that the genuineness
 here, the witness testifies or shows evidence that the signature of handwriting of the handwriting of the private respondent was done through the other mode of
of the maker is genuine authentication--- comparing the handwriting of the maker to other writing already admitted as
evidence, and in this case, the Conditiona Deed of Assignment.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT PRIVATE DOCUMENTS MUST RATIO: Sec. 21. Private writing, its execution and authenticity, how proved. — Before any
BE PROVEN TO BE AUTHENTIC: private writing may be received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved
either:
1. When the document is an ancient one within Rule 132 Section 21
a) By anyone who saw the writing executed;

b) By evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker; or
Issue: Should the demurrer to evidence be granted? Yes.
c) By a subscribing witness. Controlling issue: was there competent evidence to support a verdict of guilt against the
petitioner? No.
The petitioner was actually arguing against herself in invoking Rule 132, Section 21, for one
of the modes prescribed therein for proving the execution and authenticity of any private Ruling: there is no competent evidence to support the verdict of guilt of the petitioner because
writing is "by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker." This mode the due execution and the authenticity of the documents were not proven.
must be read with Section 23 of the same Rule, which says that —
. . . Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, In the instant case, there is no competent and sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to
made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine support a verdict of guilt against petitioners. As pointed out by petitioners, all documentary
by the party against whom the evidence is offered or proved to be genuine to evidence submitted by the private complainant were uncertified photocopies of certain
the satisfaction of the judge. documents, the signatures on which were either unidentified or unauthenticated.
We have made such comparison and find that the signature of Encarnacion G. Villanueva on Section 20, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that “before any private
the Conditional Assignment (which is not disputed) is similar to the signatures affixed to the document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must
two letters sent to the petitioner. be proved either:
There is no doubt that the agreement and the two letters were signed by private (a) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
respondent Encarnacion G. Villanueva. Consequently, their authenticity and execution (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
having been established, we hold that the letters were admissible as evidence of the
private respondent. Being private instruments, their due and valid execution and their genuineness and authenticity
must first be established, either by the testimony of any one who saw the writing executed or
by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker hereof.
Question: Was the Court the one who “proved” the authenticity of the documents by In the present case, A painstaking perusal of the testimony of the prosecution’s sole
comparing it on its own? Yes. it seems so. Is that allowed? Yes. witness reveals, however, that the due execution and authenticity of these documents were
never proved. In fact, the prosecution took no effort to prove the due execution and
authenticity of these documents during the presentation of their sole witness. Absent such
proof, these documents are incompetent as evidence. It is elementary that this Court cannot
2. Ong vs. People – 342 S 372 rightly appreciate firsthand the genuineness of an unverified and unidentified document; much
less, accord it evidentiary value.
(photocopies of the approved sale, receipt and invoices-- the prosecution made no effort
to prove authenticity)
1. Zeny Alfonso purchased a paper bagmaking machine for P362,000.00 from the
Solid Cement Corporation. When she went to the corporation’s Antipolo plant,
however, no machine could be given to her, it appearing that the machine sold had
been earlier mortgaged to a creditor, who, unfortunately, refused to release the
mortgage. Hence, Alofonso filed a criminal complaint for estafa against herein
petitioner.
2. After pretrial, the prosecution presented as its sole witness complainant Zeny
Alfonso. The prosecution then formally offered its documentary evidence and rested
its case.
a. the documentary evidence presented were mere photocopies of the
approval of the sale, of the receipt, and other documents.
3. The petitioners filed a motion of demurrer to evidence stressing that all the
documents were uncertified photocopies bearing unidentified or unauthenticated
signatures are inadmissible in evidence.
4. The MeTC then denied the demurrer to evidence and ruled that there is a prima facie
case against the petitioner.
RULE 132 SECTION 21— ANCIENT PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. — Where a
private document is more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it
would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or
circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need be given.
REQUISITES:
1. it is more than 30 years old;
2. it is found and produced in the proper custody as its nature requires (e.g., deed of
sale with the vendee);
3. it is unblemished by any alterations or by any circumstance of suspicion (What is
considered as a blemish? Hahaha idk)
Effect:
 Genuineness and due execution need not be proven as required in Section 20.
 Although authentication is not necessary, identification through a witness is still
necessary
Reason for the Rule:

 After such a long lapse of time, ordinary testimonial evidence from those who saw
the document, or knows of the handwriting, or hear the party admit its due
execution, is practically unavailing
 The circumstances of age, or long existence of the document, together with its
proper custody, its unsuspicious appearance, suffice as evidence.

RULE 132 SECTION 22 – HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING PROVED PETITIONER’S CLAIM: the prosecution was not able to prove the genuineness of his
signature in the certification.
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person
may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person  He claims that the lone witness for the prosecution, Amando R. Pandi, Jr., who
because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon identified his signature on the said certification is incompetent to testify on the
which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the matter because Pandi, as admitted, never saw the petitioner actually signing
handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a (affixing) his signature on the questioned certification.
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. Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove the genuineness of the handwriting/ signature of the
herein accused?
How to prove genuineness of the handwriting of a person?

(1) Any one who has seen it being made; Ruling: Yes. According to the rules, aside from the method of proving the genuineness of the
(2) Any one who is familiar with the handwriting of said person either because he has handwriting through the testimony of a witness who personally saw the person write/execute
seen his writings purporting to be his and recognized and admitted to be his own; the document, there are still other 2 modes which were utilized by the Sandiganbayan:
(3) By comparison, or collation to be made by the court, with writings admitted or
treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence was offered or proved to
be genuine to the satisfaction of the court 1. testimony of Pandi who has gained familiarity with the handwriting of the mayor;
and
2. by comparison with another document which was proven to be genuine or admitted
during the trial
1. Layno vs. People – 213 S 686
FACTS: RATIO: Under Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, the handwriting of a
1. The petitioner was the incumbent municipal mayor of Lianga, Surigao del Sur. person may be proved by any witness who "has seen writing purporting to be his upon which
2. On 16 March 1980, the petitioner appointed Fernando Y. Layno, his legitimate son, the witness acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of
meat inspector in the office of the municipal treasurer of Lianga. He signed the such person." Otherwise stated, any witness any be called who has, by sufficient means,
appointment document — Civil Service Form No. 35 — twice, first as the acquired knowledge of the general character of the handwriting of the party whose signature is
appointing authority and second, as the personnel officer, certifying" (t)hat all the in question.
required supporting papers pursuant to MC 5, s. 1974, as amended. have been
complied with, reviewed and found to be in order." Prosecution witness Amando R. Pandi, Jr. was competent to testify on the signature of
3. Among the supporting papers required for the appointment is the Certification Petitioner on the Certification, because in the course of his employment as municipal
signed by the petitioner, reading as follows: secretary and designated personnel officer in the municipal government of Lianga.
Surigao del Sur, he had seen records under his charge bearing the long and short
"In connection with the appointment of MR. FERNANDO Y. LAYNO, signatures of the petitioner, and, as such, he had acquired knowledge of the general
Lianga, Surigao del Sur, in the Office of Municipal Treasurer, Lianga, character of the handwriting of the petitioner.
Surigao del Sur at the rate of FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
THIRTY TWO PESOS ONLY per annum (P4,632.00), effective March 16, Moreover, the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that the signature on the certification in question is
1980. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT: the signature of the petitioner was not only based on the testimony of Amando R. Pandi, Jr.
Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence further provides that" (e)vidence
"1. He is not related to me to (sic) any person exercising immediate respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the
supervision over him within the third degree of either consanguinity or court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is
affinity. offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge." Pursuant thereto, the
4. On 28 September 1988, petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the Sandiganbayan compared the signature on the certification with the signatures of the
crime of falsification of public document defined in Article 171, paragraph 4 of the petitioner on documents filed with the court, and which were proved to be genuine. Thus,
Revised Penal Code. the Sandiganbayan held:
5. He was then found guilty o fthe crime of falsification of public document. "The record of this case contains documents bearing signatures of the accused which have
been proved to be genuine or treated by him to be so. We refer, among many others, to two
full signatures undisputably affixed by the accused on the appointment paper, Exhibit A, on

March 16, 1980, the day when the questioned signature was made. There is no doubt that these ISSUE: WON the CA erred in disregarding the Escritura de Venta Con Pacto de Retro (Deed
two signatures strikingly resemble that on Exhibit B not only in general appearance but also in of Sale with Right to Repurchase)
the manner the illegible letters were formed. Even the accused himself reluctantly admitted
that the challenged signature ‘really looks like my signature and is almost the same’." RULING: YES. The Court of Appeals erred when it disregarded the Escritura de Venta
con Pacto de Retro as a mere scrap of paper. In fact, it was an important piece of evidence
After making the comparison, the Sandiganbayan was satisfied and convinced that the that it should not have dismissed out of hand.
signature on the certification Exhibit B is truly the signature of the petitioner. The Court finds
no ground or reason for disturbing such finding or conclusion. Rule 132, Section 22, of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 22. Evidence of execution not necessary.—Where a private writing is more than
thirty years old, is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if
genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no
2. Jacob vs. CA – 224 S 189 other evidence of its execution and authenticity need be given.
The Escritura complied with all the requisites laid down in the above provision.
FACTS:  It was more than 51 years old when it was presented in court;
1. Private respondents sued petitioners for recovery of possession and ownership of a parcel  it was produced by the proper custodians thereof who were the heirs of the person
of land located in Albay. who would validly keep it;
2. Spouses Agaton Boragay and Manuela Bobiles originally owned the subject land. They  and there is no question it was unblemished by any suspicious alteration or erasure.
had only one child named Gregoria Boragay. It was therefore unnecessary to prove its execution and authenticity as evidence of the transfer
3. When the spouses died, the property passed on to Gregoria who stayed on the land of the disputed property to Leon Cabida, the petitioners’ predecessor-ininterest.
together with her husband Alejandro Alcera and their 3 children. When their children got
married, they left the property and lived with their respective husbands. Nevertheless, the said document, although authentic, may not be held to defeat the rights
4. 1974 – Venancio Bonto and Felicidad Boragay constructed a shanty on the subject land of the private respondent whose title had been registered and is binding to the whole
5. 1977 – Bonifacio Bobiles and Rosalina Base also built their house on the said lot world.
a. Same year, the OCT was cancelled and TCT in the name of private BUT, even so, that document cannot prevail against the transfer certificate of title in the name
respondents was issued. (Private respondents are the grandchildren of sps of the private respondents, who remain and are recognized as the registered owners of the
Boragay and Bobiles) disputed land. That title is good as against the whole world.
6. 1981 – 2 more houses were erected on the land by Buenaventura Jacob, Ledita Burce,
Edilberto Bonto and Elena Borebor (petitioners in this case)
7. 1984 – Trinidad Alcera Cruz demanded verbally that the petitioners vacate the premises 3. Security Bank and Trust Co. vs. Triumph Lumber and Construction Corp. –
but the latter refused. 301 S 537 (supra)
8. Hence, the filing of the complaint.
9. Petitioners claimed that in 1933, the spouses Boragay and Bobiles sold the subject lot to 5. The respondent TRIUMPH LUMBER filed an action against the petitioner Bank so
Leon Cabida in an Escritura de Venta Con Pacto de Retro (Deed of Sale with Right to reimburse it the value of the alleged forged checks drawn against Triumph’s account
Repurchase). In 1948 – Cabida sold the land to Emilio Bonto, husband of Rosario Burce. in the petitioner Bank.
In 1956, Emilio Bonto executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Ricardo Burce and
a. During the trial, it was established that the 3 checks which were drawn
Consolacion Burce Elaco covering 595 sqm of the said lot. Emilio Bonto retained the 199
sqm. In1980, Consolacion Burce Elaco, with the conformity of the heirs of her brother against the account of the accused were all forged per findings of the PC
Ricardo, verbally ceded to her niece Ledita Burce Jacob the 595 sqm portion of the Crime Laboratories. That the signatures of its authorized signatories were
subject property (confirmed and ratified by Consolacion in a document executed in 1985) all forged.
a. They also averred that they had been in actual and physical possession of the b. However, the 3 original checks alleged to be forged were not submitted in
property under claim of ownership for more than 51 years. Taxes on the court. instead, mere photocopies of the checks were presented as evidence.
property had been paid since 1948 by their predecessors-in-interest. It was only 6. Decision of the trial court: the trial court found no preponderance of evidence to
in 1976 that the private respondents came to know the subject lot.
support the complaint of the petitioner. It ruled that the private respondent failed to
10. Trial Court: dismissed the complaint. Ownership of the land - petitioners
11. Court of Appeals: reversed. Ownership of the land – private respondents as they were the show that the signatures on the subject checks were forged. It did not even present in
registered owners of the land/ this is binding to the wholw world. court the originals of the checks. Neither did it bother to explain its failure to do so.
a. THE CA further held that the Escritura de Venta, which was the basis of the Thus, it could be presumed that the original checks were wilfully suppressed and
petitioners’ claim cannot be given any weight because the same was not would be adverse to private respondents case if produced.
authenticated during the trial.

7. on appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court and ordered the We find in the records only photocopies, not the originals, of the long bond papers containing
petitioner to reimburse the private respondent. It held that it was not necessary the alleged specimen signatures. Nobody was presented to prove that the specimen signatures
for the respondent to prove that the checks were forged because of the admissions were in fact signatures affixed by Yu Chun Kit and Co Yok Teng.
Moreover, the socalled specimen signatures on the bond paper were not directly turned over to
made by the petitioner Bank and the unrebutted testimony of the expert witness.
Tabo by those who purportedly wrote them. They, together with the questioned checks, were
8. Hence the present action by the petitioner Bank arguing that: first submitted to the Administration Branch of the PC Crime Laboratory, then endorsed to the
 that the best evidence of the forgery were the original checks bearing the Questioned Document Branch.
alleged forged signatures of private respondents officers. In spite of the timely
objection made by the petitioner, the private respondent introduced in evidence
mere photocopies of the questioned checks. The failure to produce the originals
of the checks was a fatal omission inasmuch as there would be no evidentiary 4. Sy vs. CA – 330 S 550
basis for the court to declare that the instruments were forgeries. FACTS:
 the expert witness, contrary to the trial courts finding, was able to examine the 1. Petitioner Filipina Y. Sy and private respondent Fernando Sy contracted marriage on
signatures on the original checks and compared them with the standard November 15, 1973 at the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes in Quezon City. Both
signatures of the signatories. The photographic enlargements of the questioned were then 22 years old. Their union was blessed with two children
checks, which she identified in court, were in fact taken from the original 2. The spouses first established their residence in Singalong, Manila, then in Apalit,
checks. With the banks admission in its answer, as well as the unrebutted Pampanga, and later at San Matias, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. They operated a lumber
and hardware business in Sto. Tomas, Pampanga.
testimony of the expert witness and of Chun Yun Kit, there could be no doubt
3. On September 15, 1983, Fernando left their conjugal dwelling. Since then, the
that the signatures on the questioned checks were forged. spouses lived separately, and their two children were in the custody of their mother.
However, their son Frederick transferred to his father's residence at Masangkay,
Issue: was the complainant able to sufficiently prove the forgery of the signatures in the Tondo, Manila on May 15, 1988, and from then on, lived with his father.
subject checks in order for there to be a valid ruling that the subject checks should be 4. On February 11, 1987, Filipina filed a petition for legal separation before the RTC
reimbursed? of San Fernando, Pampanga which was later amended to a petition for separation of
property.
Ruling: No. the specimen signatures analyzed by the expert must also be authenticated. This 5. In 1988, she filed a case of attempted parricide against Fernando. However, the case
the plaintiff, failed to do. was lowered to slight physical injuries.
6. Petitioner filed for a declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of
The initial step in such investigation is the introduction of the genuine handwriting of the party psychological incapacity. It was denied.
sought to be charged with the disputed writing, which is to serve as a standard of comparison. 7. On appeal, she raised the issue of their marriage being void ab initio for the lack of
marriage license.
The standard or the exemplar must therefore be proved to be genuine. For the purpose of 8. Their marriage license was obtained on September 17, 1972 while their marriage
proving the genuineness of a handwriting Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides: was celebrated on November 15, 1973. Hence, the marriage license was expired
already.
SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. The handwriting of a person may
be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person ISSUE/S:
because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon 1. WON the marriage is valid.
which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of 2. WON the mere photocopies of the marriage certificate and license are properly
the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be admitted as evidence.
given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or HELD:
treated as genuine by the party. 1. NO. the marriage is NOT valid.
2. YES. They were properly admitted.
The genuineness of a standard writing may be established by any of the following:
(1) by the admission of the person sought to be charged with the disputed writing RATIO:
made at or for the purposes of the trial, or by his testimony; (2) by witnesses who 1. Evidence shows that there was no marriage license. A marriage license is a formal
saw the standards written or to whom or in whose hearing the person sought to be requirement; its absence renders the marriage void ab initio. In addition, the
charged acknowledged the writing thereof; (3) by evidence showing that the reputed marriage contract shows that the marriage license, was issued in Carmona, Cavite,
writer of the standard has acquiesced in or recognized the same, or that it has been yet, neither petitioner nor private respondent ever resided in Carmona. Marriage is
adopted and acted upon by him in his business transactions or other concerns. void ab initio for lack of marriage license. Issue on psychological incapacity is
hereby mooted.
3. The respondent tried demanding from the petitioners accounting and remittance of
2.We note that their marriage certificate and marriage license are only photocopies. So the income of the JVA as assignee of Biondo.
are the birth certificates of their son Frederick and daughter Farrah Sheryll. 4. However, the petitioners refused to do the same.
Nevertheless, these documents were marked as Exhibits during the course of the trial 5. Hence, the respondent then filed a complaint for specific performance against the
below, which shows that these have been examined and admitted by the trial court, petitioners and submitting as evidence the notarized Deed of Assignment executed
with no objections having been made as to their authenticity and due execution. by Biondo, as well as the notary public Rolando Diaz.
Likewise, no objection was interposed to petitioner's testimony in open court when a. the petitioner was arguing that the Deed of Assignment was a forgery.
she affirmed that the date of the actual celebration of their marriage was on 6. Both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeals, although resolving several
November 15, 1973. We are of the view, therefore, that having been admitted in issues differently, held that the Deed of Assignment, which was notarized, upheld
evidence, with the adverse party failing to timely object thereto, these documents are the document’s validity.
deemed sufficient proof of the facts contained therein. 7. Hence, the present action by the petitioners Realubit calling attention to the failure
RULE 132 SECTION 23 – PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE of the respondents to present the assignor, or at the least, the witnesses during the
execution of the contract.
Section 23. Public documents as evidence. — Documents consisting of entries in public a. that the testimony of Rolando Diaz, the Notary Public before whom the
records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of same was acknowledged, did not suffice to establish its authenticity and/or
the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third validity. They insist that notarization did not automatically and
person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. conclusively confer validity on said deed, since it is still entirely possible
that Biondo did not execute said deed or, for that matter, appear before
said notary public.
Coverage of the Presumption
Issue: Were the lower courts correct in ruling that the said Notarized Deed of
A. Notary/ Acknowledged Assignment as valid and authentic?
 Public documents are perfect evidence of the fact which gave rise to their execution
and of the date of the same; if the act which the officer witnessed is not shown to be Ruling: Yes. There being a presumption of regularity and authenticity accorded to
false public documents, the Deed of Assignment is admissible without further or preliminary
 However, it is not conclusive evidence with respect to the truthfulness of the proof of authenticity and due execution. Further, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to
statements made therein by the interested parties rebut such, and this the plaintiff failed to do.
Example: Baptismal certificate is proof of the administration of the sacrament and the date;
but not the details or statement as to the kinsfolk of the person baptized Ratio:
B. Documents consisting of entries in public records 1. It is a settled rule that documents acknowledged before notaries public are public
 prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated documents which are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof
as to their authenticity and due execution.
C. All other public documents 2. As a public document, the Deed of Assignment Biondo executed in favor of Eden
 of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter not only enjoys a presumption of regularity but is also considered prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated.
3. A party assailing the authenticity and due execution of a notarized document is,
1. Realubit v Jaso 658 S 146 consequently, required to present evidence that is clear, convincing and more than
merely preponderant.
Facts: Hence, in view of the Spouses Realubit’s failure to discharge this onus, we find that both
1. Petitioner Realubit entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with a French national the RTC and the CA correctly upheld the authenticity and validity of said Deed of
named Biondo for the operation of an ice manufacturing business with Realubit as Assignment upon the combined strength of the abovediscussed disputable presumptions
industrial partner and Biondo as capitalist partner and the testimonies of Jaso and of the Notary Public.
2. However, in consideration for a certain amount, Biondo then executed a Deed of
Assignment transferring all his rights to herein respondents Jaso. This Deed of Furthermore, the forgery assertion is not supported. Forgery is never presumed and must
Assignment was notarized and acknoweledged before the notary public Rolando likewise be proved by clear and convincing evidence by the party alleging the same.23
Diaz. Aside from not being borne out by a comparison of Biondo’s signatures on the Joint
Venture Agreement24 and the Deed of Assignment,25 said forgery is, moreover

debunked by Biondo’s duly authenticated certification dated 17 November 1998, office and who executed the pacto de retro sale is not the same
confirming the transfer of his interest in the business in favor of Eden. Marcelino Garcia who was in court during the trial of the case.
 Perla Babano, one of the witnesses to the execution of the pacto de retro
sale, likewise testified that the person who introduced himself as
Marcelino G. Garcia and signed the document on May 26, 1992 is not the
same Marcelino Garcia who was in court during the trial of the case.
2. Manzano Jr v Garcia 661 S 186 7. RTC Ruling: held that Garcia failed to prove that his signature in the pacto de retro
sale was forged.
FACTS: 8. CA’s Ruling set aside the decision of the RTC:
 there is no rule requiring expert testimony to determine the genuineness of
1. A property was the subject of a deed of pacto de retro sale dated May 26, 1992
a signature appearing on a document.
allegedly executed by Garcia in favor of Constancio Manzano, the predecessor-in-
interest and brother of petitioner Vicente Manzano, Jr. (Vicente) for the amount of  Since it was plainly obvious from the evidence on record that the signature
P80,500.00. Under said contract, Garcia purportedly reserved the right to repurchase appearing on the pacto de retro sale is far different from the customary
the subject property for the same price within three months from the date of the signature of Garcia that appeared in his passport and drivers license, the
instrument. testimony of Garcia that the signature was not his is sufficient evidence of
2. Garcia did not redeem the subject property within the three-month period. the forgery pursuant to Section 50, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
3. Consequently, Vicente instituted a petition for consolidation of ownership over the  The Court of Appeals added that on the basis of Atty. Mediantes
property as an heir of the vendee. testimony, the presumption of regularity in the execution of the public
 Garcia’s Defense: Garcia alleged that the document evidencing the pacto document has been sufficiently destroyed and overcome.
de retro sale was a forgery. He claimed that he and his wife were in the
USA from June 1, 1988 to November 14, 1992, and therefore could not
have possibly executed the said pacto de retro sale on May 26, 1992. ISSUE/S: WON the notarized deed of pacto de retro sale was entitled to the presumption of
4. On February 15, 1994, Garcia filed a complaint for annulment of pacto de retro regularity and should be given great weight.
sale and recovery of the owner’s title with preliminary injunction against Vicente.
 In his complaint, Garcia reiterated that he and his wife never participated in the
execution of the alleged deed of pacto de retro sale dated May 26, 1992 and HELD: No.
that in fact, they were still in possession of the said property.
RATIO: It is settled that while a notarized document enjoys this presumption, the fact that a
 He further alleged that he came to know the existence of said document only deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents. The presumption of
when the counsel of Vicente sent him a letter on January 18, 1993 demanding regularity of notarized documents is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing
that he should repurchase the property pursuant to the purported terms of the evidence to the contrary.
pacto de retro sale within 15 days from receipt of said letter.
 Upon further inquiry, he discovered that a certain Mr. P. Pacot had executed the (1) Irregularities in the notarization of the document may be established by oral
questioned document by misrepresenting himself as Marcelino G. Garcia evidence of persons present in said proceeding.
(bearing the wrong middle initial) who resided in Casinglot, Misamis Oriental, (2) In the case at bar, even more convincing evidence of the irregularity was presented
as evidenced by the Residence Certificate used in the acknowledgement page of as it was the notary public himself who testified that the person who appeared before
the pacto de retro sale. him was not respondent Garcia. Since the very official who attested to the crucial
5. During the trial, Vicente presented TCT No. T-25464 and Tax Declaration No. facts in the notarization i.e., that the persons who personally appeared before him are
41672 to prove the due execution of the pacto de retro sale, which was recorded in the same persons who executed the deed of conveyance admitted in open court the
the office of the Register of Deeds of CDO. falsity of said manifestation, the reliability of the Acknowledgment that clothes the
6. On the other hand, Garcia testified that he went to the USA on November 7, 1987. A document with a presumption of regularity is completely shattered. We, therefore,
few months later, he returned to the Philippines. He went back to the USA on June agree with the Court of Appeals that the presumption of regularity of the notarized
1, 1988. His three children were left in the Philippines, while the titles to his deed of pacto de retro sale was sufficiently overcome by the testimony of Atty.
properties were left in the office of his business establishment in Tablon, Cagayan Mediante.
de Oro City with two of their children.
 Garcia testified that the signatures appearing in the pacto de retro sale
were not his and his wife’s. He presented his passport and driver’s license, OTHER REQUISITES NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
both of which bear an entirely different signature than what appeared in
the pacto de retro sale document.
 Atty. Mediante, the person who notarized the deed of conveyance in
question, testified that the Marcelino Garcia who appeared in his
SECTION 24 RULE 132—PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD SECTION 25 RULE 132—WHAT THE ATTESTATION MUST STATE
Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance,
official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may
the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any,
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)
record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any 1. that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which may be.
the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. 2. That the original is with the custody of the public official;
3. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any,
or
 Although there is no need to authenticate public documents, there is still a necessity, a. if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
under this Section to show that indeed, a record of the official acts of official bodies,
tribunals, or public officers exists. And this is done through:
a. An official publication thereof
b. By a copy of the document attested by the officer having legal custody of
the record or by the attestation of his deputy; or if the record is not in the
Philippines, the attestation may be made by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office
What should the attestation state? See Section 25.

SECTION 26. RULE 132—IRREMOVABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORD SECTION 27. RULE 132. PUBLIC RECORD OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Section 26. Irremovability of public record. — Any public record, an official copy of Section 27. Public record of a private document. — An authorized public record of a
which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is kept, private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the
except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.
determination of a pending case. (27a)
A public record of a private document may be proved by any of the following, as attested
by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has
 This is the reason why an attestation is always necessary because of the general rule custody:
that the original copy may not be removed from the office in which it is kept, except
upon the order of a court where the inspection is necessary to the just determination (1) by the original record; or
of a pending case (2) by a copy thereof,
Reason for the Rule

 public is generally entitled to have it at the place for inspection at any time except
Example: a justice of the peace cannot certify a copy of a deed of conveyance of a land
upon order of a court where the inspection of the record by said court it essential to
because the law made no authorization for such
the just determination of a case pending therein, or the court is sitting in the same
building with such office
Effect:
 original is in great danger to be lost
 public record of a private writing is evidence only of the fact that such public writing
is of record but not as to its contents, due execution, and genuineness (Government
of the Philippine Islands vs Martinez)

SECTION 28. RULE 132—PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD SECTION 29. RULE 132—HOW JUDICIAL RECORD IMPEACHED
Section 28. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed by an officer having Section 29. How judicial record impeached. — Any judicial record may be impeached by
the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or evidence of: (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, (b) collusion between
entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a the parties, or (c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.
certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office
contain no such record or entry. Impeaching Judicial Records through Proof of Extrinsic Matters
 there can be no question as to the right of any person adversely affected by a
judgment, to maintain an action to enjoin its enforcement, and to have it declared a
When the issue involved is on the absence of an official record, the proving lack of such nullity, on the ground of fraud and collusion practiced in the very matter of
record may be done through: obtaining the judgment, when such fraud is extrinsic or collateral to the matters
involved in the issues raised at the trial which resulted to the judgment
 A written statement signed by the officer having custody of an official record or
by his deputy. It must contain the following:
(1) that there has been a diligent search of the record;

(2) that despite the diligent search, no record of entry of a specified tenor is found to
exist in the records of his office
(3) that such officer had custody of the official records

SECTION 30. RULE 132—PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS SECTION 31. RULE 132—HOW TO EXPLAIN ALTERATION IN DOCUMENT
Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every instrument duly acknowledged or Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. — The party producing a document
proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in
proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He may show
the instrument or document involved. that the alteration was made by another, without his concurrence, or was made with the
consent of the parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocent made, or that
 It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails to do
presumption of its existence and execution that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence.
REQUISITES IN ORDER THAT ALTERED DOCUMENTS BE ADMISSIBLE AS

EVIDENCE: the alteration found in the document which appears to have been done after the
execution must be accounted for by the proponent by showing that:
1. Alteration was made by another, without his concurrence, or

2. Was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or
3. Was otherwise properly or innocent made, or
4. That the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument
Otherwise, such is not admissible in evidence.

SECTION 32. RULE 132—SEAL SECTION 33. RULE 132—DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN UNOFFICIAL
LANGUAGE
Section 32. Seal. — There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private
documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. — Documents written in an
unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a
translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their
attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial.

C. OFFER AND OBJECTION How is it done?
RULE 132 SECTION 34 – OFFER OF EVIDENCE On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required to make his
formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last witness and the
opposing party is required to immediately interpose his objection thereto.
Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no evidence which has Thereafter the judge shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open
not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be court. However, the judge has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in
specified. (35) writing in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132.
Note that the party may opt not to offer the evidence presented in court
General Rule: Evidence must be offered and the court shall consider no evidence, which formally if he considers the same to not advance the cause of the party.
has not been formally offered.
 Effect: that evidence may not be ascribed any evidentiary value because such Question: may the other party then use the said evidence as his own although said
may only be done after ruling the admissibility party was not the proponent?
Reason for the Rule:

 It is the duty of the court to base its findings of fact and judgment strictly upon Cases:
evidence offered by the parties 1. Heirs of Carmen Cruz-Zamora v Multiwood International Inc GR 146428,
 Otherwise, this may draw unwarranted consequences: the parties will be deprived of January 19, 2009- SALTERAS
the opportunity to examine and object to its admissibility; and the appellate court
will have difficulty in reviewing documents not previously scrutinized  Exhibits K- K7 cannot be interpreted to be given evidentiary value as
contemporaneous acts because such were not formally offered as evidence. They
were just marked and identified and cannot be considered.
What is formally offering it as evidence?
 Not simply marked for identification
 It is done only when the party rests its case 2. Heirs of Pasag v Spouses Parocha et al GR 155483 April 27, 2007- ARANETA
When is formal offer of evidence not necessary? Facts:

1. during summary proceedings; 1. Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents and Titles, Recovery of
2. documents taken judicial notice of or judicially admitted; Possession and Ownership, Reconveyance, Partition and Damages filed by
3. documents, affidavits, and depositions used in summary judgment petitioners at the Urdaneta City RTC of Pangasinan against respondents alleging that
4. documents used in deciding quasi-judicial or administrative cases; the respondent has fraudulently adjudicated upon himself the parcels of land covered
5. lost objects previously marked, identified and described in the record in the said Titles.
6. where repeated references to certain exhibits were made during the trial both by the a. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the said property was
parties and of the court (admission) transferred to them by a deed of Quitclaim executed by the predecessor-in-
7. If the other party has failed to object to failure to formally offer evidence interest (the grandparents of the parties)
In the case of vda de Oñate: provided that the following is complied with: 2. During the trial, when the petitioners rested their case, they were granted 10
days to submit their formal offer of documentary exhibits.
 first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and, a. The petitioners asked for 2 extensions but the petitioners still failed to
 second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case. submit their formal offer of evidence after the required extended
periods.
Offer must be specific 3. Hence, the trial court judge issued an Order declaring the right of the
petitioners to submit and make their formal offer of evidence as deemed waived
 The purpose for which the offer is made must be specific
by their failure to submit on time.
 It is the duty of the party offering the evidence to select evidence that is admissible
4. The respondents then filed a Demurrer to evidence.
and competent
5. Through a resolution, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint of
 Where the evidence is inadmissible for the purposes stated in the offer, it must be the petitioners ruling that the petitioners failed to prove their claim through
rejected, though the same may be admissible for other purposes preponderance of evidence. This was upheld by the Court of Appeals.

Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing that the order of the trial court saying that Facts:
they have waived their right to formally offer evidence deprived them of due process. 1. the respondent administratix Taguba in this case filed an action for specific
performance on against the petitioner, Elvira Vda de Oñate, to compel the latter to
Issue: Was there a waiver of the right to formally offer evidence? execute a Deed of Sale covering 2 parcels of land on behalf of the deceased Taguba.
2. The trial court rendered a decision in favour of the respondent rejecting the defense
Ruling: Yes, and by reason of such, the petitioner has failed to submit evidence for of the petitioner Oñate that what they executed was a verbal contract of loan and that
consideration of the court in proving their claim. the parcels of land were merely mortgaged to the plaintiff- respondent.
3. The petitioners then went to the CA and contended that the trial court erred when it
How is the formal offer of evidence done? took cognizance of the plaintiff’s evidence, particularly Exhibits “F,” “F1,” “F2”
and “F3,” which had been marked but never formally submitted in evidence as
On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required to make his required by the Rules of Court. Consequently, it was claimed that the trial court
formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last witness and the erred in relying on the said evidence in deciding for private respondents.
opposing party is required to immediately interpose his objection thereto. 4. Decision of the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. In sustaining the
Thereafter the judge shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open lower court, the respondent court held that Exhibits “F,” “F1,” “F2” and “F3”
court. However, the judge has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in though not formally offered, may still be admitted in evidence for having
writing in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132. complied with the two (2) requisites for admission enunciated in our
jurisprudence, that is,
And this, the petitioner failed to do. (1) evidence must be duly identified by testimony duly recorded; and
(2) it must be incorporated in the records of the case.
What is the effect if the party failed to formally offer his evidence?
 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 Issue: Was the trial court correct in considering the said documents which were merely
offered by the parties at the trial. marked during the trial in making its decision?
 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 Ruling: Yes. the Formal offer of evidence rule may be relaxed under certain conditions, as in
parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it the present case.
facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review documents not
previously scrutinized by the trial court. General Rule: marking for identification is not sufficient to be considered as formal offer
 The pretrial guidelines and Sec. 35 of Rule 132 jointly considered, it is made clear of evidence. If the party does not offer the evidence formally, then the court may not
that the party who terminated the presentation of evidence must make an oral offer consider such.
of evidence on the very day the party presented the last witness. Otherwise, the court  Marking for identification is done first is done in the course of the trial and is
may consider the party’s documentary or object evidence waived. While Sec. 35 of accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an exhibit while the second is
Rule 132 says that the trial court may allow the offer to be done in writing, this can done only when the party rests its case and not before. A party, therefore, may
only be tolerated in extreme cases where the object evidence or documents are large opt to formally offer his evidence if he believes that it will advance his cause or
in number––say from 100 and above, and only where there is unusual difficulty in not to do so at all. In the event he chooses to do the latter, the trial court is not
preparing the offer. authorized by the Rules to consider the same.
Relaxation of the rule:

3. Catuira vs. CA – 236 S 398- BALDEO In a previous case, relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not formally offered
to be admitted and considered by the trial court provided the following requirements are
The formal offer of evidence of testimony of witness must be done before the witness testifies. present, viz: first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded
However, failure to object by the opponent is deemed as waiver. Hence, despite such and, second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the case.
belated formal offer of evidence of testimony of witness, the same is admissible for
consideration.
In the present case:
4. Vda. de Onate vs. CA – 250 S 283- SALTERAS The evidence in question refers to Exhibits “F,” receipt for P2,250.00 dated January 20, 1976;
“F1,” receipt for P750.00 dated February 23, 1976; “F2,” receipt for P1,000 dated March 20,
1976; and “F3,” receipt for another P1,000.00 dated July 29, 1976, all showing the varying
amounts paid by Leonor Taguba to Elvira Mato Vda. de Oñate. These exhibits were marked
at the pretrial for the purpose of identifying them. In fact, the payment of P5,000.00 was 3. We are of the view, therefore, that having been admitted in evidence, with the
admitted by herein petitioners in the same pretrial. On March 5, 1984, Eulalia Marcita adverse party failing to timely object thereto, these documents are deemed sufficient
Taguba identified the said exhibits in her testimony which was duly recorded. proof of the facts contained therein.
Likewise, extant from the records is the witness’ explanation of the contents of each of the Question: So nothing will stop the court from using or appreciating the evidence different with
said exhibits. Also telling is petitioner’s counsel vigorous crossexamination of the said witness the purpose stated during the formal offer of evidence? Kasi dito, during the time they were
who testified on the exhibits in question. offered in evidence, the purpose was to prove only the existence of the marriage kasi yung
issue nila before is psychological incapacity. Then naiba yung theory/ cause of action
Herein subject exhibits were also incorporated and made part of the records of this case. altogether. So pwede?
6. Macasiray vs. People – 291 S 154- BALDEO

5. Sy vs. CA – 330 S 550 (supra)- ARANETA
Facts:
Facts: (Same facts as before, pinili ko na lang yun directly related sa present topic) 1. the petitioners in this case are the accused in a criminal proceeding for the murder
of Johnny Villanueva.
1. Petitioner Filipina Y. Sy and private respondent Fernando Sy contracted marriage on 2. During the trial of the case, the prosecution introduced in evidence the Extrajudicial
November 15, 1973 at the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes in Quezon City. Both Confession of one of the accused, Benedicto Gonzales confessing to his
were then 22 years old. Their union was blessed with two children. participation as well as implicating the other petitioners. It was labeled as Exhibit B.
2. The petitioner Filipina then filed a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of the transcript also of the preliminary investigation was also presented as Exhibit D
psychological incapacity. containing also the extrajudicial confession and implication of other accused.
3. During their trial before the RTC, the parties submitted as evidence their marriage 3. The extrajudicial confession (Exhibits B and D) was offered at the conclusion of
contract, and the birth certificates of their children, which indicated their date of the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. The defense then interposed
marriage. It appears on their documents, and as admitted by both parties, their their objection on the admissibility of the said confession as such were executed
marriage ceremony was celebrated after the expiration of the marriage license. without the assistance of a counsel.
4. Nevertheless, both the RTC and CA denied the petition for nullity for the failure of 4. The trial court issued an order ruling that the extrajudicial confession was
Filipina to prove psychological incapacity. inadmissible after finding that indeed, Benedicto Gonzales had no counsel at such
5. Hence, the present action by the petitioner. However, the petitioner raises for the time.
first time, the issue of the validity of their marriage on the ground of lack of valid 5. then, the respondent sought the nullification of the said order of the trial court
marriage license. It appears that, according to her, the date of the actual celebration before the CA. the CA rendered a decision nullifying said order and held that
of their marriage and the date of issuance of their marriage certificate and marriage the extrajudicial confession of Benedicto as admissible in evidence for the
license are different and incongruous. belated objection of the defense to the said admissibility of the evidence. It
6. It is also to be noted that their marriage certificate and marriage license are ratiocinated that:
only photocopies. So are the birth certificates of their son Frederick and a. Those markings (as Exhibit B and as Exhibit D) show that the documents
daughter Farrah Sheryll. were introduced during the prosecution’s evidenceinchief; and,
necessarily, they were testified on by a prosecution witness.
Issue: in view of the glaring issue of validity of marriage by reason of lack of a valid b. The fact that the prosecution proposed to formally offer them in evidence
marriage license, Should the SC take such issue despite the fact that the documentary at the close of trial implies that when the documents were first introduced
evidence on such were mere photocopies and the same issue being raised only for the first through the prosecution witness at the trial, the defense did not object to
time? their introduction.
c. To prevent the introduction of such kind of evidence, the practice is for the
Ruling: Yes. there is no reason to prevent the SC from appreciating and taking into defense to move for its exclusion at any time before commencement of
consideration the documentary evidence presented by the parties as they were admitted trial. Such failure of the defense may therefore be taken as a waiver of
in evidence during the trial. their objection—and the waiver was made at the trial by said accused who
was in fact assisted by counsel.
d. Thus, because of such failure to object, the prosecution succeeded to
1. these documents were marked as Exhibits during the course of the trial below, which introduce the subject documents and cause them to be marked for
shows that these have been examined and admitted by the trial court, with no identification as Exhibits B and D.
objections having been made as to their authenticity and due execution.
2. Likewise, no objection was interposed to petitioner’s testimony in open court when Hence, the present action by the petitioners arguing that they interposed their objection on the
she affirmed that the date of the actual celebration of their marriage was on proper time—during the formal offer of evidence, and not during the identification and
November 15, 1973. marking of the exhibits.
b. On the other hand, the respondent argued that there was no such
Issue: Should the petitioners be considered as having waived their objections? provisional rates that they have agreed upon and that he has no
unpaid rentals.
Ruling: No. the petitioners were able to make their proper objections at the proper time— 3. By motion of the respondent, the case was suspended so that the parties be able to
during the formal offer of evidence. The fact that the exhibits were marked as such does not obtain a preliminary determination and certification from the Department of
signify that they had been admitted by the court. such merely means that they were presented Agrarian reform that the issue of unpaid rentals as well as the termination of the
in court during the trial. tenancy relationship was right for the trial court to resolve.
a. During the administrative proceedings with the DAR, it would appear
that the petitioners submitted a verified complaint and affidavit with
When should the objection to evidence be done? a statement of the provisional rates they were trying to impose.
4. The DAR then issued a certificate ruling that the issue of non-payment of rentals
1. Objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally offered.4 In the was proper for the determination of the court, but not the issue of termination of
case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party tenancy.
making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is 5. Then, the trial proceeded and the RTC rendered a decision dismissing the complaint
being offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the of the petitioners finding that no evidence was adduced by the petitioners to prove
documentary evidence may be made. the provisional rental alleged to have been fixed by the Ministry of Agrarian
2. In this case, petitioners objected to the admissibility of the documents when they Reform.
were formally offered. 6. The CA likewise, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, upholding the ruling of the
3. Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, petitioners did not waive objection to RTC finding that no evidence was introduced to prove the provisional rates of
admissibility of the said documents by their failure to object when these were allegedly imposed by DAR.
marked, identified, and then introduced during the trial. That was not the proper time 7. Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing that the verified complaint and
to make the objection. “Objection to the documentary evidence must be made at the the affidavit presented by petitioners to the DAR are proofs of the provisional rentals
time it is formally offered, not earlier. fixed by it and that it was error for the trial court not to have taken cognizance of
4. Objection to the identification and marking of the document is not equivalent to these documents.
objection to the document when it is formally offered in evidence. What really
matters is the objection to the document at the time it is formally offered as an
exhibit. Issue: were the lower courts correct in not considering the verified complaint and the affidavit
5. Objections to the admissibility of documents may be raised during trial and the court presented by the petitioners to the DAR as proofs of the provisional rentals?
may rule on them then, but, if this is not done, the party should make the objections
when the documentary evidence is formally offered at the conclusion of the Ruing: yes. They were correct as such documentary evidence were not formally offered in
presentation of evidence for the other party. evidence during the trial. It is settled that courts will only consider as evidence that which has
been formally offered.
1. The affidavit of petitioner Natividad Candido mentioning the provisional rate of

rentals was never formally offered; neither the alleged certification by the Ministry
7. Tuason vs. CA – 241 S 695- SALTERAS of Agrarian Reform. Not having been formally offered, the affidavit and certification
cannot be considered as evidence. Thus the trial court as well as the appellate court
correctly disregarded them.
2. If they neglected to offer those documents in evidence, however vital they may be,
8. Candido and Rumbaua vs. CA and Dabu– 253 S 78- ARANETA petitioners only have themselves to blame, not respondent who was not even given a
chance to object as the documents were never offered in evidence.
Facts:
1. The petitioners Candido and Rumbaua owned a riceland located in Orion, Bataan.
On the other hand, the respondent Dabu was their agricultural tenant. Note that formal offer of evidence is not mere marking for identification.
2. The RTC Complaint: the petitioners then filed a complaint against Respondent for  A document, or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it is simply marked
termination of tenancy relationship and recovery of unpaid rentals for certain crop for identification; it must be formally offered, and the opposing counsel given an
years. opportunity to object to it or crossexamine the witness called upon to prove or
a. The petitioners alleged that respondent failed to pay in accordance with identify it.
the provisional rates (26- 29 sacks of palay), allegedly set by the Ministry  A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to base their findings of fact
of Agrarian Reform. and judgment only—and strictly—upon the evidence offered by the parties at the
trial.
 To allow a party to attach any document to his pleading and then expect the court to Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the
consider it as evidence may draw unwarranted consequences. offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify.
 The opposing party will be deprived of his chance to examine the document and
object to its admissibility. Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's
 The pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Court on the inclusion on appeal of testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be
documentary evidence or exhibits in the records cannot be stretched as to include done in writing.
such pleadings or documents not offered at the hearing of the case.
Further, the petitioner cannot argue or even compel the judge to take judicial notice of
the same, since the said documents are not among the matters which the law mandatorily
requires to be taken judicial notice of; neither can we consider it of public knowledge, or
capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions.
9. People vs. Barellano – 319 S 567- BALDEO
10. People vs. Sanchez – 308 S 264- SALTERAS

Section 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. — When it becomes
immediately after the offer is made. reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the question being
propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made, whether
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the
shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to
such class of questions. (37a)
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of
the unless a different period is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)

Section 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the Section 39. Striking out answer. — Should a witness answer the question before
objection is made, unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such
the question presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the
time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation answer given to be stricken off the record.
presented by the ruling.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if the incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (n)
objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or
some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. (38a)

Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If documents or things offered in
evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made
part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record
the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the
proposed testimony. (n)

RULE 133 SECTION 2 – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is
entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
SECTION 1 – PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, HOW DETERMINED reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error,
produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In
determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues
involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of Cases:
knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they
testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of 1. DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies vs Radio Mindanao Network GR
interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear 147039, Jan 27, 2006
upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the 2. Encinas v National Book Store GR 162704, November 19, 2004
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. (1a) 3. People vs Villarico GR 158362, April 4, 2011
4. People vs. Mejia – 55 S 453
5. People vs. Matrimonio – 215 S 613
6. People vs. Gondora – 265 S 408
7. People vs. Cabiles – 248 S 207
8. People vs. Lorenzo – 240 S 624
9. People vs. Rigodon – 238 S 27
10. Tin vs. People – 362 S 594

SECTION 3: EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR RULE 133 SECTION 4 – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN SUFFICIENT
CONVICTION
Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. — An Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is
extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for sufficient for conviction if:
conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (3)
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. (5)
Cases:
1. People v Anticamara GR 178771, June 8, 2011

2. People vs. Salvame – 270 S 766
3. People vs. Malimit – 264 S 167 (supra)
4. People vs. Ramos – 240 S 191
5. People vs. Adofina – 239 S 67

RULE 133 SECTION 5 – SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. — The court may stop the
introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is
Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi- already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be
judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution. (6)
evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)
1. Ang Tibay vs. CIR – 69 P 635

2. Bascos v Taganahan GR 180666, February 18, 2009
3. Fabella vs. CA – 282 S 256
4. PAL vs. NLRC – 263 S 638
5. Villaflor vs. CA – 280 S 297

Section 7. Evidence on motion. — When a motion is based on facts not Section 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made
appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented immediately after the offer is made.
by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or
partly on oral testimony or depositions. (7) Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness
shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a witness, the An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of
offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify. unless a different period is allowed by the court.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party's In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified.
testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be
done in writing.
How are Objections Done
When is evidence to be offered? A. While specifying the grounds for the objections, the objection must be made
B. (temporal element)
It depends on the type of document to be offered.
A. if Offer of evidence is made orally— objection must be made immediately
A. If testimonial evidence right after the offer is made
 Must be made at the time the witness is called to testify B. for a question propounded during the examination of a witness—must be
made as soon as the grounds therefore shall become reasonable apparent
 Why? To allow and enable to court or know whether or not the same is
C. if offer of evidence is made in writing—within three days from notice unless
indispensable or relevant to the case
a different period is allowed by the court
B. If documentary or object evidence
 They are to be offered after the presentation of a part’s testimonial
What does it mean that the grounds to the objection be specific?
evidence. The offer is made orally unless allowed by the court to be in
 Objector cannot just simply manifest that he is interposing an objection, he has to
writing.
precisely state the exclusionary rule that would justify his opposition to the proffered
evidence.
By reason of this clarification as to when evidence is formally offered in evidence, the
presentation of evidence for marking and identification during the course of the trial is not the
When should the objection be done?
offer contemplated in the Rules.
 Objection to evidence before it is presented or before the purpose is given is
 Hence, failure to object to evidence during the time of marking and identification
premature
does not constitute a waiver of the right to object. Such is not the proper time.
 Premature if made during the preparatory stages of identification and marking
 Objections must be made after they had been offered and the offer of such evidence
shall be made after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence.  It must be made at the proper time as specified by the rule, otherwise, there is
deemed a waiver of the objection and could no longer raise such issue later on.
 Mere fact that the evidence has already been marked as an exhibit does not mean
that it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of the party  Why? It enables the adverse party to meet the objection to his evidence, as well as
grants the trial court the opportunity to pass upon the and rule on the objection.
o To raise it only for the first time during the appeal without allowing
the lower court to rule on the matter is contrary to basic fairness and
procedural orderliness.
 If the counsel was not afforded the time to express his objections to a question
propounded to a witness, the counsel may move to strike out the answer (see
Section 39)
What is the effect of belated objections?

 Such constitutes waiver because there is failure to point out some defect, irregularity
or wrong in the admission of exclusion of evidence
 failure to assert an objection promptly and specifically is a waiver. Unless a timely
and sufficient objection is made to an evidence introduced, the reviewing court will

not ordinarily consider the question of propriety of the admission of the evidence. It Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. — When it becomes
will not considered on appeal because there is deemed to be a waiver. reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the question
 It would also be as if the party who failed to object consented to the introduction of being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made,
inadmissible evidence. whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to
repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his
Extent of the waiver: admissibility only and does not extend to the judge’s discretion on continuing objection to such class of questions.
giving it the weight
 Nevertheless, the fact that it was admitted and may be considered validly by the Hence, instead of repeating the objections to such class of objectionable questions, it is
court would mean that it would be given weight by the court in arriving at its sufficient for the objection to be recorded as a continuing objection.
judgment.
 The evidence becomes admissible but the waiver involves no admission that the For example
evidence possesses the weight attributed to it by the offering party (1) when questions calling for hearsay answers are repetitiously asked by the adverse
 Waiver should not be construed as an admission that the evidence is credible. It also counsel, the recording of a continuing objection to such questions would be in order
does not mean that the party waives his right to present controverting evidence. after an initial objection had already been made
 It only refers to admissibility: competence and relevance (2) the court may treat an objection a continuing one and it it would be unnecessary
 Hence, for example, hearsay evidence was admitted as such was not objected to when the objection has once been distinctly made further to vez the court with
during the trial. However, the judge will still give value to what it’s worth—hearsay. useless objections and exceptions.
No means of assuring credibility
Why are Objections necessary?

1. To keep out inadmissible evidence that would cause harm to a client’s cause.
 Since the (exclusionary) rules of evidence are not self-operating, they
would have to be invoked by way of objection
2. To protect the record—that is—to present the issue of inadmissibility of the offer
evidence in a way that if the trial court truly erroneously, the error can be relied
upon as a ground for future appeal
3. To protect the witness from being embarrassed on a stand or from being harassed by
the adverse counsel
4. To expose the adversary’s unfair tactics (misleading and leading questions)
5. To give the trial court an opportunity to correct its own errors, and at the same time,
warn the court of the ruling adverse to the objector may supply a reason to invoke a
higher court’s appellate jurisdiction; and
6. To avoid a waiver of admissibility of an otherwise inadmissible evidence.
What are the types of objections?
Objections may be formal or substantive

(1) Formal objection is one directed against the alleged defect in the formulation of the
question
(2) Substantive objection is one made and directed against the very nature of the
evidence i.e., it is inadmissible either because it is irrelevant or incompetent or both
(e.g., parol evidence rule; best evidence; opinion, res inter alios acta)

Section 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the 2. when the answer of the witness is irrelevant, incompetent or otherwise improper;
objection is made, unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on 3. when the answer is unresponsive;
the question presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such 4. when the witness becomes unavailable for cross-examination through no fault of the
time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation cross-examining party; or
presented by the ruling. 5. when the testimony was allowed conditional and the condition of its admissibility
was not fulfilled.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if the
objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or Remedy for:
some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. (38a) 1. objectionable questions but the adverse party was not given the opportunity to voice
out its answers, by reason, for example, of the answering right away;
Ruling on Objections 2. or when an apparently unobjectionable question brings out an objectionable and
inadmissible response but the infirmity of the response only becomes apparent after
GR: parties who offer objections to questions on whatever ground are entitled to a ruling at the answer has been completed
the time the Objection is made
unless they present a question with regard to which the court desires to inform itself
before making its ruling
 in that event, it is perfectly proper for the occur tto tak e a reasonable time to
study the question presented by the ibjection
But a ruling must always be made and that the same be made during the trial.
Why? So that the party against whom it is made be given the opportunity to meet
the situation presented by the ruling
 it shall be an error for the court to reserve (“the objection will be taken into
consideration”, without ruling as to whether or not it is sustained or not) its
decision upon an objection to evidence until after the trial is closed.
Rejected evidence not to be considered by the trial court

 it is error for the court to take into consideration in making its decision the
evidence which it had ruled out as inadmissible
What could then be the remedy of the party?

 new trial
 the fact shall be brought to the attention of the trial court through an appropriate
motion and will ordinarily, not be considered if urged for the first time on
appeal.
Section 39. Striking out answer. — Should a witness answer the question before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such
objection is found to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the objection and order the
answer given to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are
incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (n)
A motion to strike answer

A motion to strike may be availed of on the following isntances:
1. when the answer was premature;

Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If documents or things offered in evidence
are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the
record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name
and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed
testimony.
Why make a tender of excluded evidence?
First, to allow the court to know the nature of the testimony or the documentary evidence and
convince the trial court judge to permit the evidence or testimony
Second, even if he is not convinced to reverse his earlier ruling, the tender is made to create
and preserve the record for appeal.
How?
A. attach it and make it part of the record; identify, read, state the contents of the
documents; and
B. state the purpose for which the object or document sought to be attached is
offered and to as that it be marked for identification and have it attached on the
record

RULE 133
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

 probability of truth
SECTION 1 – PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, HOW DETERMINED
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party having
burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining
where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the
court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of
testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which
there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their
personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court
may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily
with the greater number.
What is preponderance of Evidence?

 Refers to the weight, credit, value, of the aggregate on either side, and not the mere
numerical army of witnesses.
 Means that the testimony [evidence] adduced by one side is more credible and
conclusive than that of the other.
 Usually referred to as one with greater weight of credible evidence
 Evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief that that which
is offered in opposition thereto
What should be considered in determining the preponderance of evidence?

1. All the facts and circumstances of the ace
2. Witness’ manner of testifying , their intelligence either means and opportunity in
knowing the facts which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they
testify, the probability of improbability of their testimony;
3. The witness’ interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as
the same may ultimately appear in the trial
4. Number of witnesses, although it does mean that the preponderance is necessarily
with the greater number
Example of factors affecting the weight and value of certain evidence

 Findings of fact of the trial court judge are given great weight
 Where irreconcilable conflict the testimony of witnesses exists, the appellate court
will not disturb the findings of the trial court when the evidence of the successful
party suffice to sustain the judgment appealed from
 Findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses will not be disturbed
unless such findings overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, of
considered, might affect the results of the case
 Discrepancies relating to merely insubstantial matters lend weight rather than detract
from the credibility of the witness
 Writing made contemporaneously with a transaction is ordinarily regarded as a more
reliable proof than the recollection of witnesses
SECTION 2 – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT  Note however, that this is not a mandatory rule in the Philippines and not a positive
rule of law in the Philippines. hence, if a part of a testimony of the said witness is
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is found true, it cannot be disregarded completely
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, (2) Contradiction between witnesses
produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof  If the inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses are not of serious
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. nature, the witnesses may still be considered as credible
(3) Testimony inherently improbable
Quantum of evidence in Criminal cases  When the testimony of the witness is inherently improbable, inconsistent
 absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict a defendant of a with human experience, or against the natural course of things, it will not
criminal charge, but moral certainty is required to every proposition of proof be credited.
requisite to constitute the offense.  Example: lapse of 4 years before the filing of the rape case impairs the
o Hence, a testimony of single witness if positive and credible is sufficient credibility of the complainant
to support a conviction even in the charge of murder (4) Demeanor of the Witness
 The demeanor of the witness on the stand is one of the elements to be
What is Reasonable Doubt? conserved in determining the weight of his testimony
 Reasonable doubt does not refer to any doubt or a mere possible doubt. Reasonable  The emphasis, gesture, and inflection of his voice are potent aids in
doubt is that state of the case which, after a comparison of all evidence, does not ascertaining his credibility
lead the judge to have in his mind, a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.
 by reasonable doubt is not meant that doubt engendered by an investigation of the
whole proof and inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the Cases:
certainty of guilt
 the doubt to the benefit of which accused persons are entitled in a criminal trial is a Case 1. DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies vs Radio Mindanao
reasonable doubt, and not a mere whimsical or fanciful doubt, based on imagined Network GR 147039, Jan 27, 2006
but wholly improbable possibilities and unsupported by evidence
Facts:
11. Respondent Radio Mindanao filed a complaint for recovery of insuarance proceeds
against the petitioner DBP Pool and Provident insurance pursuant to the Fire
Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases Insurance policy issued by the latter to the former.
 in every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt, all the a. The claims were made due to the fire that ravaged the respondent’s radio
elements of the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the accused. station in Bacolod City.
 Lies with the prosecution because of the presumption that the accused is presumed 12. Duringt the trial, the insurance companies argued that the insurance claims should be
innocent until the contrary is proven denied because it was caused by one of the excepted risks as provided for the by
 The conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecutor’s evidence and not on the insurance policy: due to mutiny, riot, popular rising, insurrection, rebellion,
weakness of the defense revolution, military or usurped power.
o Hence, the accused need not even offer evidence on his behalf, and he a. The insurance company was trying to establish the fact tha the said 20
would be entitled to acquittal if the prosecution fails to discharge such men who caused the fire were members of the CPP/NPA. Hence, it
burden of proof submitted the following evidence for the consideration of the court:
i. Testimonies of Lt. Torres and SPO3 Rochar who did the
Quantum of Evidence, if met, is determined by the Courts investigation. they have stated in their testimonies that that they
 The issue of whether the degree of proof has been met is left largely to the trial were informed by the bystanders who saw the 20 heavily armed
courts to determine men who caused the fire were members of the NPA because the
said perpetrators shouted “Mabuhay ang NPA!” but the persons
Some guides in the appreciation of evidence who actually saw the burning were not called to the stand
(1) Falsus In Uno Falsus in Omnibus ii. a letter released by the members of the NPA which states that
 Requisites: they were dissatisfied with the actions of the media in Bacolod,
 That the witness deliberately or intentionally falsified the truth to show that the NPA takes credit over the burning of the station
iii. the police blotter
 That the other portions of the testimony which are to be discredited, are
13. the RTC rendered a decision in favour of the respondent ruling that the claims
not corroborated by circumstances or other unimpeached evidence
should be granted.

14. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC ratiocinating that: The issue before this Court is whether petitioners were able to discharge their burden of
a. The insurance company failed to support its allegations that the loss was proving the superiority of their title over the title of respondent. The Court of Appeals upheld
caused by an excepted risk—that is—the members of the CPP-NPA the initial Decision of the RTC and found the quantum of evidence presented by petitioners
caused the fire. insufficient. A review of the evidence reveals no compelling reason to reverse the appellate
b. That none of the evidence presented by the insurance company court’s ruling.
categorically stated that indeed, the 20 men were members. They were just
“suspected” or “believed” In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance
c. The letter admitting the participation of the CPP-NPA to the burning is of evidence. “Preponderance of evidence” is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
inadmissible in evidence as such is made by a third person evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term “greater
d. That the utterances of the bystanders, as heard by the investigation weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.” Preponderance of
team could not be verified as res gestae evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth.
Issue: Was the petitioner able to sufficiently prove that the burning was caused by one of the It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is
excepted risks, specifically, the burning was caused by the CPP-NPA? offered in opposition thereto.
Ruling: No. Respondent as plaintiff was able to overcome the burden of proof and prove by preponderant
evidence that it has a superior right and title to the subject property. In contrast, petitioners as
Not only are the evidence submitted by the petitioner inadmissible as evidence, assuming defendants seem to rely only on the alleged weakness of respondent’s evidence, without
arguendo that they are indeed admissible, they were insufficient to prove the fact that the 20 asserting any proof other than her reconstituted title to the subject property.
armed men who burned the station were indeed members of the CPP-NPA.
From the evidence, respondent derived its title from the title of its vendor, the Heirs of Simeon
The admissibility of evidence should not be equated with its weight and sufficiency. Evangelista, via a deed of sale. The Heirs obtained their title from their predecessorininterest
Admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of Simeon Evangelista. Prior to the transfer of the title to respondent, the Heirs had sold the
evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and subject property to the Paculdo spouses in whose names another title was issued. All these
persuade. transactions involving the property are welldocumented.30 From the time respondent obtained
the property, it protected its interest therein by fencing off the property and designating
Even assuming that the declaration of the alleged 20 armed men as heard by the bystanders security guards around its perimeter.31 Respondent also exercised its obligation as owner by
may be admitted as evidence, it does not follow that such declarations are sufficient proof. paying real property taxes on the property it had acquired, evidenced by tax declarations
These declarations should be calibrated visàvis the other evidence on record. And the trial issued in its name by the Quezon City Assessor’s Office.32
court aptly noted that there is a need for additional convincing proof to establish that the cause
of the fire was the intentional burning of the radio facilities by the rebels or an act of In contrast, petitioner Encinas asserts her right to the subject property via a reconstituted title,
insurrection, rebellion or usurped power. Evidence that persons who burned the radio facilities also presented in evidence. However, other than the allegation in her Answer to respondent’s
shouted “Mabuhay ang NPA” does not furnish logical conclusion that they are member of the Complaint (for quieting of title) that she is the owner in fee simple of the subject property,
NPA or that their act was an act of rebellion or insurrection. Additional convincing proof need petitioner Encinas failed to disclose before any of the judicial levels how she was able to
be submitted. acquire title to the property.
Defendants failed to discharge their responsibility to present adequate proof that the loss Case 3. People vs Villarico GR 158362, April 4, 2011
was due to a risk excluded.
Further, when supported by substantial evidence, findings of fact of the trial court as affirmed
by the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties, which this Court will not review unless (1) the Several accused were charged with the crime of murder of Haide through
there are exceptional circumstances. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case that shooting him treacherously. The RTC convicted them of homicide and the CA
would have impelled the Court to depart from the factual findings of both the trial court and convicted them of murder. Both courts gave full credence to the positive
the CA. identification of the several accused as perpetrators of the crime.
(2) Among the contentions of the accused in the present cases is that the
Prosecution witnesses did not actually see who had shot Haide; hence, their
Case 2. Encinas v National Book Store GR 162704, November 19, 2004 identification as the malefactors was not positively and credibly made.

What is positive identity and how is it important in proving guilt beyond reasonable Indeed, neither Remedios nor Francisco needed to have actually seen who of the accused had
doubt? fired at Haide, for it was enough that they testified that the four armed accused: (a) had
strategically positioned themselves by the kitchen door prior to the shooting of Haide; (b) had
 The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of still been in the same positions after the gunshots were fired; and (c) had continuously aimed
the criminal, for, even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can their firearms at the kitchen door even as they were leaving the crime scene.
be no conviction without proof of the identity of the criminal beyond reasonable
doubt.22 In that regard, an identification that does not preclude a reasonable The close relationship of Remedios and Francisco with the victim as well as their familiarity
possibility of mistake cannot be accorded any evidentiary force. with the accused who were their neighbors assured the certainty of their identification as
Haide’s assailants.
 The intervention of any mistake or the appearance of any weakness in the
identification simply means that the accused’s constitutional right of presumption of
innocence until the contrary is proved is not overcome, thereby warranting an
acquittal, even if doubt may cloud his innocence. Case 4. People vs. Mejia – 55 S 453
How is positive identity proved (done? Haha)? Facts:

The Court has distinguished two types of positive identification, namely:
(a) that by direct evidence, through an eyewitness to the very commission of the act; (1) Dominador Mejia, Rolando Echalar, Ricardo Garcia and Fidel Capili guilty of the
and crime of murder and found them all guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court
found them all guilty of conspiring with each other to kill Victoriano Dela Cruz.
(b) that by circumstantial evidence, such as where the accused is last seen with the (2) The appellant Mejia, thru counsel de oficio, seeks a reversal of the judgment and a
victim immediately before or after the crime. consequent declaration of his innocence on the ground of reasonable doubt, stressing
his alleged nonparticipation in the conspiracy that resulted in the killing of
In the second instance, although a witness may not have actually seen the very act of Victoriano de la Cruz, the victim named in the indictment upon which the appellant
commission of a crime, he may still be able to positively identify a suspect or accused as the and his coaccused were convicted.
perpetrator of a crime as for instance when the latter is the person or one of the persons last
seen with the victim immediately before and right after the commission of the crime. This is How did the prosecution establish the presence of conspiracy during the trial?
the second type of positive identification, which forms part of circumstantial evidence, which,  The factual details inculpating the appellant Mejia were established mainly by the
when taken together with other pieces of evidence constituting an unbroken chain, leads to testimony of eyewitnesses:
only fair and reasonable conclusion, which is that the accused is the author of the crime to the o Prosecution witness Aurelia de la Cruz who stated that she heard one of
exclusion of all others. the accused Echelar “Pasok, mga ulol,” which was a command to his
companions to hide; the remark was intended not for Capili alone, as
ISSUE: In view of this, were the witnesses able to positively identify the accused so as to shown by the use of the plural word “mga,” nor was the command
support the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt? intended to exclude the appellant Mejia because he and Garcia were
together near the “talipapa.”
Ruling: Yes. o The second remark of Rolando, “Iyan ang isa, tirahin mo na,”
demonstrates the unity of purpose of the four accused, as the remark
The established circumstances unerringly show that the four accused were the perpetrators of indicated that they finally had an intended quarry — one whom they
the fatal shooting of Haide. Their identification as his assailants by Remedios and Francisco believed belonged to the enemy camp.
was definitely positive and beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, Remedios saw all the four
accused near the door to the kitchen immediately before the shots were fired and recognized Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the participation of
who they were. She even supplied the detail that Gilberto, Jr. had trained his firearm towards the Mejia in the crime considering that no one has seen him shoot the victim?
her once he had noticed her presence at the crime scene. On his part, Francisco attested to
seeing the accused near the door to the kitchen holding their firearms right after he heard the Ruling: Yes. By circumstantial evidence, the guilt of the Mejia was proven beyond reasonable
gunshots, and also recognized them. doubt.
The collective recollections of both Remedios and Francisco about seeing the four accused That the appellant Mejia did not participate in the shooting of the victim de la Cruz does not
standing near the door to the kitchen immediately before and after the shooting of Haide inside make him any less a conspirator, because it has been proved that he acted in concert with his
the kitchen were categorical enough, and warranted no other logical inference than that the coaccused. He posted himself at a vantage point, as did his coaccused, as they prepared and
four accused were the persons who had just shot Haide. waited for the moment to strike; he fired at Pito just before Capili shot de la Cruz; and he fled
tog ether with his coaccused from the scene of the crime immediately upon its commission.

(1) Rowena was rather passive, if not submissive to his sexual advances;
Conspiracy can seldom be proved except by circumstantial evidence. The conduct of the (2) it was highly improbable that her brother and sister, who were lying beside her,
appellant before, during and after the commission of the crime demonstrates that he was part were not awakened by her supposed struggle when the accused stayed on top of her
of the conspiracy,3 the degree of his participation being of no consequence. for thirty (30) minutes
(3) there was any threat employed by him, the same was not sufficient to prevent the
We hold that the crime was committed in pursuance of a proven conspiracy, and that the complainant from resisting since he was unarmed
appellant’s direct involvement in the said conspiracy was established beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the
appellant?
Case 5. People vs. Matrimonio – 215 S 613
Ruling: Yes.
Facts:
(1) Rowena Matrimonio is a 14 year old girl alleged to have been raped by his natural A finding of guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, or that degree of proof which
father, herein accused Manuel Matrimonio. produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind; it should not be based on a mere accusation for
(2) The first incident of rape led to Rowena’s pregnancy. It was only after the second an accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt.
incident of rape that Rowena finally decided to report what his father was doing to
her. In evaluating the evidence in cases of rape, this Court has consistently adhered to the
(3) During the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses Rowena, the policeman following principles: a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove,
Martin, and the Medico Legal Officer. but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; b) in view of the
 On the other hand, the defense presented the accused and was trying to intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two (2) persons are usually involved, the
establish that Rowena consented to the sexual intercourse saying that they testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and c) the evidence
were lovers. for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw
 On rebuttal, Rowena vehemently denied the allegations of the accused and strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
that she had never lived together with him as lovers as the accused is his
father; and that the only reason why he yielded to his carnal desires was
the because of the threats he made. In most rape cases, however, the culpability of the offender invariably hinges on the story of
(4) The RTC rendered a decision finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Confronted the complainant37 since the crime of rape is not normally committed in the presence of
with the foregoing diametrically opposed versions, the trial court found no difficulty witnesses. This Court is therefore duty bound to carefully scrutinize and closely examine the
in giving full faith and credit to the story of Rowena and in discrediting that of the complainant’s testimony that the accused indeed committed the crime. Corollarily, conviction
appellant. The RTC stated in its decision in the evaluation of the contending of the accused should not be made to rest on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant
evidence presented by both parties: (I think important to kaya copy past ko hehe) unless the latter’s story is impeccable and rings true throughout, or bears the stamp of absolute
truth and candor.
“The evidence of the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused
raped his own daughter, Rowena, on December 27, 1985 and April 5, 1986,
intimidating her in both instances to submit to his evil desire—the circumstances of
the second rape, being almost identical to those of the first rape.” In view of the said principles, considering that the present case hinges only on the
credibility and believability of the private Complainant Rowena, should Rowena’s
The court, in giving credence to Rowena’s testimony, it stated that: Rowena testimony be given full credence and great weight to support conviction of the appellant?
appeared to the Court as one who has not overcome the trauma of her misfortune—
and would rather keep to herself the ignominy of her sad experience. In fact, the Ruling: Yes.
records will show that she first took the witness stand, the Court had to reset the
reception of her testimony as she was too reluctant to talk and that, when she First Reason: the findings of the lower court as to the credibility of the witness in rape
decided to testify, she cried in open Court— obviously ‘still possessed of the should be given great deference.
traditional and proverbial modesty of the Filipina’ who would not have filed this
complaint against her own father and ‘suffered the torment, if not ignominy, of in the appreciation of the evidence, the appellate court accords due deference
having to testify in a court of justice about the wrong done to her’ by her own father, to the trial court’s views on who should be given credence4 since the latter is
if in truth she was not really raped. in a better position to decide the question of the credibility of witnesses,
having seen and heard these witnesses and observed their deportment and
Hence the present action of the appellant insisting that there was no rape considering manner of testifying during trial.
that Rowena consented to the intercourse and such is implied by the fact that:
Second Reason: Rowena is credible in view of the following considerations: For apart from the shock and the numbing effect of the whole incident, the rapidity with which
In the instant case, We could hardly believe that Rowena would fabricate a the sequence of events took place must have taken its toll on the accuracy of the witness'
story of defloration and charge her father with two (2) counts of rape unless account
these were true. At her tender age, she needed the company, care and support
of a father and mother. She certainly realized that by her accusations, her Malinao is the commonlaw wife of the deceased and her relationship, as such, adds to the
father would be deprived of his liberty and thrown into prison to serve a long weight of her testimony since she would then be interested in seeing the real killers brought to
sentence. She was also aware that by testifying, she made public a painful justice rather than falsely implicating innocent persons. This Court has held that it is not to be
and humiliating secret which others would have simply kept to themselves lightly supposed that relatives of the deceased would callously violate their conscience to
forever, jeopardized her chances of marriage or foreclosed the possibility of a avenge the death of a dear one by blaming it on persons whom they believe to be innocent
blissful married life56 as her husband may not fully understand the thereof. Relationship per se does not give rise to a presumption of ulterior motive, nor does it
excruciatingly painful experience which would haunt her. ipso facto impair the credibility or tarnish the testimony of a witness. It has been correctly
observed that the natural interest of witnesses who are relatives of the victims in securing the
Conclusion: this being so, the prosecution, through the testimony of private complainant, conviction of the guilty would deter them from implicating persons other than the culprits, for,
was able to prove the elements of rape with intimidation. otherwise, the latter would gain immunity. In the absence of illmotive on the part of the
witness, and none was shown, relationship between her and the victim does not undermine her
credibility and so [her] testimony is entitled to full faith and credence.
We sustain the trial court for the prosecution’s evidence proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellant intimidated Rowena into consummating
the sexual acts with him on 27 December 1985 and 5 April 1986. He Case 7. People vs. Cabiles – 248 S 207
conveniently availed of two (2) forms of intimidation: threats and his
overpowering moral influence. With respect to the first incident, he craftily FACTS:
threatened her during the initial stage by telling her not to shout or else she (1) The several accused (Cabiles, Rudy and Rogelio Esparraguerra), were charged with the
would be killed; he also threatened the lives of her mother, sister and brothers crime of Robbery with Homicide. The victim is Violeta Angustia, a fish vendor.
to force her to yield her honor and privacy when he was already on top of (2) During the trial, the prosecution presented the witness Salvacion, daughter of the victim
her. To an innocent girl who was then barely fourteen (14) years old, the who was with her during the incident of the crime. She stated during her testimony that:
threat engendered in her a wellgrounded fear that if she dared resist or  On that very night, she decided to accompany her mother on her way home as
frustrate the bestial desires of the appellant, she, her siblings and her mother she was tipsy that night.
would be killed. Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and is,  Suddenly, the three accused appeared from nowhere and demanded money
therefore, subjective. It must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception from Violeta. Rogelio forcibly took the money from her then Cabiles took her
and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard mother’s arms. Rudy then drew a bolo and hacked Violeta through her neck.
and fast rule.  She however, fearing for her life, ran to their home and locked herself.
(3) On the other hand, the defense presented the three accused trying to establish alibi.
Case 6. People vs. Gondora – 265 S 408 (4) After trial, accusedappellants were found guilty as charged by the court a quo . They were
sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Violeta
Angustia, civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00.13
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in rendering a judgment of conviction based on
the biased and uncorroborated testimony of witness Edma Malinao. We find the contention Hence, the present action by appellant. They argue that the prosecution’s version of the
bereft of merit. The rule is to accord much weight to the impressions of the trial judge, who crime at bar incredible. They aver that Salvacion’s allegation—that she was with her mother
had the opportunity to observe the witnesses directly and to test their credibility by their during the hacking incident—does not inspire belief because it would be unwise for them, as
demeanor on the stand. Although the judgment of conviction was primarily based on the the alleged assailants, to leave her unharmed if, indeed, she had witnessed the incident.
testimony of Edma Malinao, we do not find any reversible error committed by the lower court Further, accusedappellants fault Salvacion for her failure to report the crime to the authorities
in arriving at its findings. The rule is that witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered. It has or seek help from her neighbors that same evening. Accusedappellants, therefore, insist that
never been uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a single Salvacion was not around at the time of the incident.
witness.
Issue: Was the trial court correct in giving credence to the testimony of witness Salvacion to
The inconsistency refers to minor details and has no bearing on the credibility of the witness. support the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
It is rather immaterial to dwell exhaustively on whether the victim was boxed first when the
cause of the death of the victim is the multiple stab wounds inflicted on his person. On this Ruling: Yes.
point, Edma Malinao consistently testified and remained unwavering in her stand that
appellant and Totoy Killer, repeatedly stabbed the victim to death. A certain latitude must be
given to whatever minor mistake the witness might have said about the actual confrontation.
Finding of credibility of trial Court is given weight. It is settled that the findings of the trial (3) On the other hand, the petitioner testified and maintained that the real parties to the
court on the credibility of witnesses should not be disturbed because the latter is in a better loan were Dr. Santiago and her daughterinlaw, Mia Chan. She merely introduced
position to decide the question, having observed the deportment of the witnesses and their them to one another and it was Mia Chan who signed the acknowledgment receipt
manner of testifying during the trial, unless certain facts of value have been plainly overlooked and who actually received the pieces of jewelry. Mia Chan, for her part,
which, if considered, might affect the outcome of the case. corroborated the testimony of petitioner, her motherinlaw
 the trial court’s assessment on whose story should be believed goes beyond what the (4) The RTC rendered a decision in convicting the herein petitioner. The same was
witnesses declare at the trial—a privilege which the appellate court does not usually upheld by the CA. both courts ruled that:
enjoy. Absent any compelling reason to overturn the trial court’s findings, the same  it was petitioner who extended the loan and who actually received the
must be respected. jewelries from Dr. Santiago. Their conclusion stemmed from the following
circumstances:
Salvacion is credible. The probative value of Salvacion’s testimony is not diminished by her a. In a letter she wrote to Fiscal Jumino, one Aurora Jose who had allegedly
failure to report the incident to the authorities that tragic evening. What she did after the introduced Dr. Santiago to Maria Tin and who was present when the
killing of her mother was an act of selfpreservation. transaction took place, corroborated Dr. Santiago’s testimony;
b. The signature of appellant [petitioner] appears on the document16
 Considering her relationship with the victim she would be more interested in acknowledging receipt of the pieces of jewelry;
securing the conviction of the guilty, and that would deter her from implicating c. Receipts evidencing payments made by Dr. Santiago and which appeared
persons other than the culprits, otherwise, the latter would go free. to be signed by the petitioner were not denied by the latter;
d. Petitioner did not deny that she sent a note (Exh. “M2”) to Dr. Santiago
Accusedappellants’ defense of alibi is not worthy of belief. We have repeatedly ruled that alibi reminding her to update her payments, or else she would auction the
is a weak defense as it is easy to concoct and fabricate. It becomes weaker in the face of the pieces of jewelry.
positive identification of an accused by an eyewitness with no improper motive to falsely
testify. Issue: was the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable
doubt?
Case 8. People vs. Lorenzo – 240 S 624

Ruling: No.
Case 9. People vs. Rigodon – 238 S 27 (1) A careful review of the records, however, reveals that, first, it was erroneous for the
Court of Appeals to consider in evidence the letter which a certain Aurora Jose sent
to Fiscal Jumino. Aurora Jose was never presented to testify on the veracity of said
letter, much less its contents. A private certification is hearsay where the person who
Case 10. Tin vs. People – 362 S 594 issued the same was never presented as a witness.
(2) Second, the signature appearing in the receipt, Exhibit “A”, apparently differs from
Facts: the specimen signatures provided by petitioner Maria Tin in open court. But it has
(1) the petitioner Tin was charged with the crime of Estafa for allegedly defrauding Dr. striking and obvious similarities to Mia Chan’s specimen signatures. The differences
Santiago who entrusted the several pieces of jewelry as collateral for the loan, under and similarities are so obvious to the eye. They could not be casually disregarded.
the express obligation of returning the said pieces of jewelry upon demand for Expert handwriting analysis is probably useful here, but it is not indispensable.
redemption. (3) Third, petitioner did not deny that she received payments and made demands for
(2) During the trial, private complainant Dr. Francisca Santiago testified that on payment from private complainant. They do not show, however, that she was the
February 8, 1980, she and Aurora Jose went to Mady’s Pawnshop owned by one who extended the loan and accepted the jewelries. Note that even Mia Chan
petitioner to pawn some pieces of jewelry. A list of the jewelries was typewritten by received certain payments from Dr. Santiago, as shown by Exhibits “8”, “8A”, “10”
a helper of the petitioner. This list was signed by petitioner as evidence of her and “10A.” A certain “Viring” also received payment from Dr. Santiago.24 These
receipt of the said jewelries. Dr. Santiago also averred that from 1980 to 1982, she instances only prove that a person who received payments from another is not
made payments of various amounts totaling P95,600.00. She said that the loan was necessarily the person who extended the loan.
under a “white paper” system where there is no maturity/expiration date and where (4) Fourth, Exhibit “M2”25 which the Court of Appeals considered proof that petitioner
the jewelry can be redeemed anytime provided the interests were paid. was in possession of the jewelry, deserves serious scrutiny. Said exhibit was not
 that when she returned to the pawnshop to redeem the jewelries, Dra. properly identified or introduced as evidence at the trial. It was marked as an exhibit
Francisco was informed by the petitioner that they were already sold. upon mere manifestation of counsel.26 It was not touched upon during the testimony

of the private complainant nor listed in the list of exhibits for the prosecution,27 SECTION 3: EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR
hence deemed inadmissible in evidence. CONVICTION
(5) Fifth, Mia Chan’s admission, that she was the one who extended the loan and
received the jewelries, deserves weighty consideration and could not be ignored. Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction. — An
That admission is one against selfinterest, amounting to an incriminatory statement, extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for conviction,
which the witness could not have volunteered if not the truth. unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
(6) Private complainant did not present evidence to substantiate her claim, other than
her self serving testimony. Private complainant relied on the acknowledgment Corpus Delicti
receipt allegedly signed by petitioner in the presence of two witnesses. However, the  means the actual commission of the crime charged must also be proved, by evidence
prosecution did not present Aurora Jose, who allegedly witnessed the transaction. independent of the defendant’s confession
Nor did it present Mrs. Dava and Mrs. Zuñiga who allegedly accompanied Dr.  this does not mean however that every element of the crime must be clearly
Santiago when the latter tried to redeem her jewelries. While nonpresentation of established by independent evidence, apart from the confession. It only means that
certain witnesses is not a valid defense nor does it work against the prosecution’s there should be some evidence tending to show the commission of a crime apart
cause, this holds true only if the evidence of the prosecution is sufficiently strong to from the confession
overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused. If the prosecution evidence o Example: in homicide, aside from the confession of the defendant, there
is not strong, then it becomes mandatory for the prosecution to present evidence should be some independent proof of the (1) death of the deceased which
which can help further its case, or explain why such evidence is not presented. When might have (2) resulted from some form of violence
the sole testimony of the complainant is met by an equally credible evidence of the  It must be proven that indeed, a crime has been committed
defense, then the prosecution must present credible corroborative witnesses to
buttress its case. Its failure to present corroborative witnesses, without any
explanation why they were not produced, weakens the testimony of the witness who
named those corroborating witnesses in her testimony.30 In this case, the
prosecution’s failure to present the corroborative witnesses, without any explanation
for their nonappearance, makes private complainant’s testimony weak.

 RULE 133 SECTION 4 – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN
SUFFICIENT
Requisites to convict through circumstantial evidence
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is (a) There is more than one circumstances;
sufficient for conviction if:
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(a) There is more than one circumstances;
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and beyond reasonable doubt.
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction  the above circumstance shall constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair
beyond reasonable doubt. and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused and to the exclusion of all other,
as the author of the crime.
What is Direct Evidence?  The totality of the circumstances must exclude each and every hypothesis consistent
 Evidence that proves a fact without a need to make an inference form another fact with innocence. Hence if the totality of the circumstances eliminates beyond
 Examples: reasonable doubt the possibility of innocence, the conviction is proper.
a. Testimony of the witness claiming that he personally saw the accused
when the latter drew his pistol and fired his pistol on the victim  It is not a weaker defense, vis-à-vis direct evidence. As to probative value, the Court
b. The witness testifying that he saw the accused set the nipa hut on fire in a considered circumstantial evidence of a nature identical to direct evidence because
case for arson no greater degree of certainty is required when evidence is circumstantial as it is
c. Deed of sale as evidence of the sale direct. In both types of evidence, what is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
What is Circumstantial Evidence  It ought to be noted that our rules “make no distinction between direct evidence of a
 Which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be
draws form the evidence established inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is
 Fact is established by making an inference from a previously established fact circumstantial than when it is direct, for in either case, the trier of fact must be
 Uses fact from which an assumption is drawn convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.”
 That which relates to a series of facts other that the fact in use, which has been found
by reason of common experience, to be so associated with the facts in issue that,  When the circumstances obtaining in a case are capable of two inference, one of
relative to the cause and effect, leads to a satisfactory conclusion which is consistent with the presumption of innocence whole the other may be
 Is that indicia that are separately of little importance may, by their concordant compatible with the finding of guilt, the court must acquit the accused because the
combination and cumulative effect, satisfy the legal requirements on the guilt of an evidence is not sufficient to fulfill the test of moral certainty and, therefore, is
accused insufficient to support a judgment of conviction
 When no witnesses can testify directly to the fact to be proved, it is arrived
 Examples:
a. Fingerprints of the accused in the scene of the crime
b. Possession of the stolen property or weapon used
c. Opportunity Guidelines:
d. Motive (1) it should be acted upon with caution
(2) all the essential fact must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt
Conviction through circumstantial Evidence (3) the facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt
 Even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had if the established (4) the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt
circumstances constitute an unbroken chain, consistent with each other and the
hypothesis that the accused is guilty, to the exclusion of all other hypothesis that he
is not.
o It is essential since to insist on direct testimony would, in many cases, Cases:
result in setting felons free and denying proper protection to the
6. People v Anticamara GR 178771, June 8, 2011
community
7. People vs. Salvame – 270 S 766 (2) Malaki sustained multiple stab wounds and he died of “cardiac arrest, secondary to
8. People vs. Malimit – 264 S 167 (supra) severe external hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds”;
(3) witness Elmer Ladica saw the appellant on August 6, 1991, accompanied by some
Facts: policemen, retrieve Malaki’s wallet underneath a stone at the seashore in Barangay
Hingatungan;
(1) Malimit was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide of Malaki, a store (4) appellant himself admitted in his testimony that on August 6, 1991, he accompanied
owner. several policemen to the seashore where he hid Malaki’s wallet; and
(2) During the trial of the case, the prosecution presented as evidence the following: (5) appellant’s flight and his subsequent disappearance from Hingatungan immediately
 Rondon, a farmer who arrived at the store of Malaki to buy some chemical after the incident.
for his farm. In his testimony, he stated that he saw the accused appellant
rushing out of the door of the store of the victim while holding a bolo with
blood.
 Batin, the houseboy of Malaki, who testified that when he went to ask 9. People vs. Ramos – 240 S 191
Malaki to the store to ask him what he wanted for dinner, he saw Malaki
on the floor drenched in his own blood, and saw the accused appellant also
coming out of the store with a bolo Facts:
 Both witnesses positively identified the accused appellant. (1) appellants ANGEL FERNANDEZ, MARCO FERNANDEZ, RODOLFO
 The wallet, keys and IDs of the victim Malaki retrieved from the accused TULAGAN, together with one ALEX RAMOS were charged with the crime of
appellant which were allegedly taken by him ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
(3) The accused appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide based (2) There was no eyewitness to the crime.
on the abovementioned evidence submitted. (3) The evidence for the prosecution was given by Patrolmen DANTE ASEGURADO
 Note that the conviction was based on the several circumstantial evidence and GEMINIANO BAGSIK, DR. LEON RONDILLA, JR., and PEDRO who
presented by the prosecution responded to the call and report of a robbery-slaying incidence in the residence of
Aida Sison and her housemaid, Avelina Hernandez. They were already lifeless when
hence, the present action by the accused appellant, among all others, that the evidence they arrived at their home. However, they were also able to apprehend the suspects
presented by the prosecution were insufficient. as they were still in the premises of the residence of Aida. Crawling and/or hiding,
trying to flee. The said officers also was able to confiscate knives and blades from
Issue: Was the trial court correct in convicting the appellant despite the absence of direct the herein accused all covered in blood. The jewelries and money were also
evidence, and sustaining such decision based on circumstantial evidence? retrieved from them.
(4) The RTC rendered a decision convicting all the herein accused.
Ruling: Yes. there can be a verdict if conviction based on circumstantial evidence when the (5) The CA upheld such decision.
circumstances proved form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion
pinpointing the accused, to the exclusion of all the others, as perpetrator of the crime. Hence, the present action by the appellants arguing that the prosecution was not able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt their guilt there being no direct evidence.
Essential requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to convict: Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt using all of the
circumstantial evidence they have presented?
(a) there is more than one circumstance;
(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and Ruling: Yes.
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence is either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is that evidence which proves a
fact in issue directly without any reasoning or inferences being drawn on the part of the
in the present case, there were at least five (5) circumstances constituting an unbroken factfinder. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue.
chain of events which by their “concordant combination and cumulative effect,” satisfy The factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.
the requirements for the conviction of the appellant. These are:
Under our Rules of Court, conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sufficient if: (a)
(1) appellant was seen by Rondon and Batin, whose credibilities were untarnished, there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
holding a bolo in his right hand and rushing out of Malaki’s store seconds prior to proven; (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
their discovery of the crime; reasonable doubt.

It ought to be noted that our rules “make no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and RULE 133 SECTION 5 – SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred. No greater
degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct, for in Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial
either case, the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or
accused.” that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion.
In the case at bench, we are convinced that the totality of the circumstantial evidence adduced
by the People excludes any reasonable doubt that appellants are innocent. The records
indubitably show that appellants had the opportunity to commit the crime at bench, They When applicable?
arrived together and immediately proceeded to the store of victim Aida Sison in the afternoon  Degree of evidence applies to administrative cases, or those cases filed before
of October 26, 1987. By their own admission, they were at the locus criminis shortly before administrative and quasi- judicial bodies
the tragic incident. They also had the means to commit the crime. Soon after the killing,
appellants Marco and Angel were nabbed by the authorities within the compound of the Sison What Constitutes Substantial Evidence?
residence. Pat. Crispin Reyes arrested Marco, while Geminiano Bagsik collared Angel who  Is more than mere scintilla
was still holding the bladed weapon (Exhibit “H”) stained with blood. Rodolfo Tulagan was  Relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
arrested in the morning, the following day, near the crime scene, also in possession of a knife. conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, may conceivable opine
Significantly, appellants were fleeing when the authorities apprehended them. otherwise
Why the relaxation in administrative proceedings (not bound by the strict rules of
The timely apprehension of appellants Marco and Angel inside the compound, Angel’s evidence and procedure)?
possession of the dagger stained with blood at the time of his arrest, Rodolfo’s act of
concealing himself from the arresting officers and his foiled attempt to leave the locality the  To free the administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the
following day, are clear indicia of said appellants’ guilt. mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial
proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order
 But this assurance of desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not
go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence have rational probative
force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial
10. People vs. Adofina – 239 S 67 evidence
6. Ang Tibay vs. CIR – 69 P 635
Facts:
(1) The present action is a petition for certiorari by the National Labor Union for an
action before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) which denied its motion for
new trial. The CIR previously rendered a decision ruling that Ang Tibay is not guilty
of ULP on the ground of discriminately dismissing the union members. The Union
avers that:
 That the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair labor practice for
discriminating against the National Labor Union, Inc., and unjustly
favoring the National Workers' Brotherhood.
 That it wishes to introduce newly discovered evidence regarding the
falsity of the defense of Ang Tibay that there was indeed lack of supply of
leather to justify the discharge of the 89 union member employees
(the case focused on the issue of the motion of new trial. But for purposes of our discussion,
here is the issue, regarding the ruling of the CIR in finding that Ang Tibay is not guilty of
ULP)

Issue: Was the trial court correct in holding that Ang Tibay is not guilty of ULP of
discriminating against union members? 9. PAL vs. NLRC – 263 S 638
Ruling: Yes. The Union was not able to adduce substantial evidence to prove the guilt of
Ang Tibay for ULP.
10. Villaflor vs. CA – 280 S 297

We have found no substantial evidence to indicate that the exclusion of the 89 laborers here
was due to their union affiliation or activity. The whole transcript taken contains what
transpired during the hearing and is more of a record of contradictory and conflicting
statements of opposing counsel, with sporadic conclusion drawn to suit their own views. It is
evident that these statements and expressions of views of counsel have no evidentiary value.
The CIR is a quasi-judicial body and what the quantum of evidence required as basis for
its decision is substantial evidence only.
Nature of the Office of the CIR
The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in
the law of its creation. It is more an administrative board than a part of the integrated judicial
system of the nation. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the Government. Unlike
a court of justice which is essentially passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and
deciding only cases that are presented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the Court of
Industrial Relations, as will appear from perusal of its organic law, is more active, affirmative
and dynamic. It not only exercises judicial or quasijudicial functions in the determination of
disputes between employers and employees but its functions are far more comprehensive and
extensive. It has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and
settle any question, matter controversy or dispute arising between, and/or affecting, employers
and employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or f armlaborers, and regulate the
relations between them.
WHAT IS THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR DECISIONS OF THE

ADMINSITRATIVE AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES?
There must be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be
"substantial." "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
And in the present case: In the light of the foregoing fundamental principles, it is sufficient to
observe here that, except as to the alleged agreement between the Ang Tibay and the National
Workers' Brotherhood (appendix A), the record is barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a
factual ,basis upon which to predicate, in a rational way, a conclusion of law.
7. Bascos v Taganahan GR 180666, February 18, 2009
8. Fabella vs. CA – 282 S 256

Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. — The court may stop the Section 7. Evidence on motion. — When a motion is based on facts not appearing of
introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the
already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on
additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution. oral testimony or depositions.
Power of the Court to Stop Further Evidence  this provision has reference to facts put in issue in a motion, but not to facts alleged
 since, as a general rule, there is no logical requirements as to the number and kind of in the pleadings.
witnesses to prove a material fact, the parties are free to call as many witnesses as
they may deem convenient to their own interests
 it is however, well settled that the court may limit the number of witnesses upon  Facts alleged in a motion may be proved by affidavits or depositions, but the court in
the main or collateral issue, but its discretion must be exercised with caution its discretion, may order that oral testimony be presented before itself or before a
considering the nature of the case, the character of the witnesses, and the state of the Commissioner appointed in accordance with the ROC.
proof
 it should be applied whenever the evidence is already full that more witnesses to
the same point could not be reasonable expected to be more and additionally
persuasive.

1 Session. Araneta-Evidence - Custodio - AY 2015 - 2016 - Term 2 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Session. Araneta-Evidence - Custodio - AY 2015 - 2016 - Term 2 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence Proof (the Effect of providing Evidence

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 1

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 3

1. State Prosecutors vs. Muro – 236 S 505

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 4

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 5

6. Subsequently, two (2) Informations were filed against accused Armando

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 8

Definition: Is admission same with confessions?

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 11

Requisites for the admissibility of object evidence Demonstrative Evidence

Authentication Autoptic Preference

Authentication by a competent witness CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 16

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 17

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 18

People vs. Flores – 328 S 461

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 19

BPI v Reyes GR 157177 February 11, 2008

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 21

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 22

Issue: Should the evidence submitted by Ortigas be admitted in court?

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 23

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 24

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 25

1. being a party to the case 1. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity

AM NO. 004-07 (Rule on Examination of Child Witness:

1. People vs. Taneo – 218 S 494- BALDEO

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 28

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 29

Take note of this difference, because this is the issue:

Incompetency to testify as to anti-marital Incompetency to testify as to matters

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 31

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 33

Elements: Reason for the rule:

o hence, The Dead Man’s Statute may be waived

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 34

Limitation on the application of the Rule:

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 36

ISSUE/S: WON the wife of the deceased (Susana) is allowed to be a witness.

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 39

Facts: Ruling: No.

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 43

ISSUE/S: WON Dante Cepeda is guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 44

Reason for the exceptions:

Reason for the Admissibility 1. People vs. Condemena – 23 S 910

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 48

When not held to be applicable: 3. Involuntary confession

Reason For Admissibility 6. Voluntary confession

Requisites for Admissibility Facts:

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 52

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 55

Reason for the Admissibility Reasons for Admissibility

Examples: Requisites of Admissibility

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 56

Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. — The testimony or

RULE 130 SECTION 48 – OPINION RULE

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 57

summoned as an expert witness. However, she also happened to be the attending

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 60

1st Session. Araneta- Evidence- Custodio- AY 2015- 2016- Term 2 61