Rem Evid 1

CONSOLIDATED REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 2 TRANSCRIBED NOTES: EVIDENCE
RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS

How does a factual issue arise in a case whether
What is evidence? it is in a civil or in a criminal case? When is
- Evidence is the means sanctioned by the there in fact in issue in a case?
Rules of Court in ascertaining in a judicial - So the first step in producing factual issues
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of is the filing of a complaint where the plaintiff
fact. There are certain words and phrases asserts or alleges certain facts. That's only
there that we should understand. the first step in producing factual issues.
What is meant by judicial proceeding? What is the next step so that there will be factual
- Evidence is the means of ascertaining the issues?
truth in a judicial proceeding. So, judicial - The plaintiff files a complaint where he
proceeding must refer to something, it's a alleges certain facts
judicial proceeding, so to what does judicial
proceeding refer? Judicial proceeding refers What facts does the plaintiffs assert in his
to civil action, criminal action and special complaint?
proceedings. Civil action and criminal are not - He asserts facts constituting his cause of
proceedings. These are not proceedings but action. But by themselves, these facts
they may be the subject of certain asserted by the plaintiff in his complaint are
proceedings. So, what are the judicial not factual issues yet they are not factual
proceedings referred to here? Well, evidence issues.
is a means of ascertaining the truth; this
refers to the trial that is the proceeding of When do they become factual issues? When do
civil and criminal action or other actions. the facts alleged by the plaintiff in his complaint
become factual issues? What happens next after
- Judicial proceeding referred to here is the the complaint was filed and the defendant has
trial of civil or criminal cases. So, evidence at been served summons?
least the way it is defined under Section 1 of - The defendant files his answer.
Rule 128 is not applicable to proceedings
before administrative cases, to the trial or of What should the defendant do in his answer so
cases before administrative bodies, it refers that there will be factual issues produce? What
only to the trial of civil and criminal cases in does defendant do in his answer? So, the
the courts of law that's where the rules on plaintiff files a complaint where he asserts
evidence are applicable because the way certain facts constituting his cause of action
evidence is defined under Section 1 of Rule against the defendant, after the defendant is
128 it does not refer to a piece or kind of served summons the defendant will file answer
evidence. It refers to the mass of rules which properly denying the facts alleged in the
are designed to ascertain the truth complaint. And so what will be produced by that?
respecting a matter of fact in a judicial - The Factual Issues
proceeding.
That is how factual issues arise in a case. A factual
What is a matter of fact, whose truth is sought to issue is created when one party asserts a fact in his
be ascertained in a judicial proceeding? pleading and the other party properly denies that fact
- It refers to the fact in issue in a civil or or those facts in his pleading.
criminal case. So it is the truth of a fact in
issue that is sought to be ascertained by The plaintiff in the complaint asserts that fact A
evidence in a trial of civil or criminal case. So exists. Okay, so that is the allegation of the
matter of fact refers to the fact in issue. plaintiff in his complaint that fact A exists. Now,
________________________________
Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Consolidated TSN by: Irish Baula | Claire Beltran | Imelda Garcia | Abbey Perez | Arrah Quevedo-Ignacio | Dana Reyes | Jevi Ruiz | Mikee Rualo | Tin Sampang-
Bonsol | Zet Trinidad
Page 1 of 55
in his answer, the defendant will assert or allege the parties it may not always, the judicial
that fact A does not exist. So, the defendant truth it may not always correspond with the
denies that fact A exists. So what factual issue actual truth in what really happened, not
will arise now? How will you state the factual always. It depends on the evidence that is
issue? presented by the parties during the trial of
- Whether or not fact A exists the case.
The plaintiff is asserting the fact A exists but the If one party fails to present sufficient evidence, if a
defendant properly denied it in his answer. So, there party fails perhaps because of the incompetence of
is now a factual issue, whether or not fact A exists, his counsel then the actual truth may not be
so the court would not no way which is true, does determined by the court, because the court will just
fact A exist as the plaintiff asserts it or does fact A rely on the evidence presented by the parties.
not exist as alleged by the defendant, the court
would not know. That's why in a criminal case, an accused may be in
reality, the guilty of the crime charged but he may be
What should the plaintiff do to convince the court acquitted not because he's innocent because the
that fact A exists? actual truth is that he is guilty of the crime charged.
- The plaintiff will present evidence to prove
that fact A exists the truth is that fact A If the prosecution fails to present sufficient
exists. That is evidence, that is what evidence to prove the guilt of the accused,
evidence does it ascertains that truth or a beyond reasonable doubt, then what the court
fact in issue or a matter of fact. will ascertain, it's not the actual truth, but the
court will ascertain is that the judicial truth? And
That is how evidence is defined. It is a means it's a what would that be? What would be the judicial
way, it does not refer to the evidence itself to the truth if the prosecution failed to present evidence
piece of evidence that is presented by the parties to prove the guilt of the accused?
during the trial. So the way evidence is defined under - The accused is innocent. But you will know
Section 1 of Rule 128, it does not refer to a quite that the court seldom determines that the
particular piece of evidence, either testimonial accused is innocent. In fact, I've never
evidence, object evidence or document. It refers to encountered a case where the judgment of
the mass of rules designed to ascertain the truth, the Court declared the accused as innocent
respecting a factual issue in the trial of civil or I’ve never seen a judgement that declared
criminal cases. the accused is innocent.
What sort of evidence is a means of ascertaining What the court will declare is that the accused is
the truth? What do you think what kind of truth is acquitted on the ground of the failure of the
ascertained after the presentation of evidence by prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
the parties? reasonable doubt.
- It is referred to as the judicial or the legal
rules. An accused is never declared to be innocent but the
court acquits the accused for failure of the
What then is the judicial or the legal? Does it prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
correspond to the actual truth always? reasonable doubt.
- No, not necessarily.
In effect, the accused is never declared innocent. So
What judicial truth refers? that that illustrates judicial truth from the actual truth
- Only the truth that is determined by the court so the judicial truth may not always correspond to
after considering the evidence presented by the actual truth but sometimes it does if all the
________________________________

Page 2 of 55
evidence is presented by the parties then the court constitutional right, of the accused against
would be able to determine the judicial truth which unreasonable searches and seizures, then those
will correspond to the actual truth. firearms would not be admitted in evidence.
What are the sources of the rules on evidence? 3) Supreme Court issuances - Such as the
1) Rules of Court - Primary source of the Rules child witness rule, judicial ethics. The special
on Evidence, particularly from Rule 128 to rules of procedure promulgated by the
Rule 133 Supreme Court.
2) 1987 Constitution 4) Substantive laws
Are you saying that even the 1987 Constitution is What else? Are substantive laws served a source
a source of Rules on Evidence, is there a of rules on evidence?
provision in the 1987 constitution that provides - Yes.
for a Rule on Evidence?
- Yes, paragraph 2, Section 3 of article 3 of But are there substantive laws, which are also
the 1987 Constitution – It is provided that sources of rules of evidence? Is there a
any evidence obtained in violation of the substantive law? Is there a statute, which is also
constitutional rights of a person is a source of rules on evidence? What about the
inadmissible evidence so, that is a rule on family code is a source of at least a rule on
evidence. evidence? Is there a provision in the family code
which is a rule on evidence?
Any evidence of being in violation of the different - What is provided in the Family Code under
constitutional rights of the accused the right to Article 172 – it provides for the evidence that
privacy of communication, the right to be assisted by is required to prove legitimate filiation, it
a council of his own choice, all these rights under the starts with, first would be the record of birth.
Bill of Rights. So it's a rule on evidence, because it
provides for the evidence that is required to
Any evidence obtained in violation of any of these prove legitimate filiation. So, even
rights under the Bill of Rights would be inadmissible substantive laws may be sources of rules or
in evidence. evidence.
In one case, firearms, undocumented for unlicensed How would you distinguish factum probandum
firearms were recovered from the house of the from the term factum probans?
accused so he was charged with possession, illegal - In factum probandum, it refers to the fact that
possession of firearms, but later it was shown by the is to be ascertained or to be established
accused that the police officers who conducted the while factum probans it is the evidentiary
search did not have a search warrant, although the facts by which the factum probandum is to
firearms were really recovered from the house of the be established.
accused but since the firearms were recovered in - It simply means factum probans will refer to
violation of the right of the accused against the fact in issue because that is what is
unreasonable searches and seizures, meaning sought to be the truth of which is to be
without a search warrant, therefore, the Supreme ascertained.
Court said since you cannot use those firearms to
prove that the accused committed the possession, What would be the evidence or the matter that
the crime of possession of firearms, then the should be presented to the court to prove or to
accused should be acquitted even if firearms were establish the factum probans or the factum
really recovered from the house of accused but since probandum?
those firearms were obtained in violation of the
________________________________

Page 3 of 55
- In factum probandum, the ultimate facts are

sought to be established while, in factum We know what evidence is. So you present that in
probans the evidentiary facts by which the court so that proof will be produced. It is presented in
factum probandum is to be established. court. But what is proof, where do you find proof?
Which is produced by evidence? We know what the
In a case for murder, let us say one of the factual evidence is, it is present in court, and either
issues because in the information the prosecution testimonial evidence, documentary evidence or
alleged that the accused shot and killed the victim. object evidence, so we know what evidence is
When the accused entered the plea of not guilty that evidence is a way for producing or attaining proof.
became an issue. So the factual issue now is Proof is the product of evidence.
whether or not it was the accused that shot and killed
the victim. So from the point of view of the Where do we find proof that is produced by the
prosecution the fact that it will try to prove meaning evidence presented?
the factum probandum is that accused shot and - A party presents evidence to prove a fact
killed the victim. that he alleges in his pleadings, to prove or
to establish a fact that he alleges in his
What evidence do you think what factum pleading. So the evidence is intended to
probans, what would be the factum probans or produce proof.
the evidentiary matter that will establish that the
accused shot and killed the victim? Supposedly, How will a party know that the evidence he
there is an eyewitness somebody saw the actual presented produced proof to lose proof? How will he
shooting of the victim by the accused, so what know? Because that's the purpose of presenting
would be the factum probans? evidence to produce proof, okay. Like in proof
- The testimony of the eyewitness – The beyond reasonable doubt, the proof, in proof beyond
testimony of the eyewitness that's the facto reasonable doubt, was for those made the
probans, so what will be eyewitness say presentation of evidence by the prosecution. So what
when he testifies. He will testify that he was was produced by the evidence of the prosecution,
present at the scene of the crime and he saw proof of guilt beyond reasonable? So where do you
the accused shot and killed the victim. find that the proof?
How would you distinguish evidence from proof? When a party presents evidence, who is
- We often use this word sometimes listening? Who is observing the witnesses when
interchangeably; evidence and proof but they they testify?
have different meanings of their own. They - The Judge.
have meaning of their own.
- They say that evidence is the medium of How does a party know that the evidence that he
proof and proof is the product of evidence. presented produced proof? So what will be the
So evidence is the medium of proof. judge do so that the proof is produced? I just
want to emphasize this. So let's say the
What is the meaning of medium? prosecution presented evidence eyewitness, all
- When you say evidence is the medium of for the purpose of producing proof so that later
proof. What you're saying is that evidence is on, the accused will be convicted, and who will
a way or so medium is a way of attaining convict the accused?
proof and proof is the product of evidence. - The Judge will be the one to convict.
So evidence is a means of obtaining proof,
proof now is the product of evidence. So to What will be the basis of the Judge in convicting
attain proof, you have to present evidence a the accused?
party must present evidence to obtain proof.
________________________________

Page 4 of 55
- The basis would be the evidence presented.

That means the evidence that were When a witness testifies that he has personal
presented by the prosecution produce proof knowledge that a fact exists it is positive evidence in
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. the same manner when he testifies that because of
Where do you find the proof beyond reasonable personal knowledge that a fact does not exist it is
doubt that was produced by the evidence also positive knowledge.
presented by the prosecution which result in the
conviction of the accused? Where do you find
the discretion of the judge? So where is proof When is there a negative evidence?
found? - When a witness testifies that he does not
- In the mind of the Judge, you do not want to know whether a fact exists, or whether it
see it because it's never said in your class in does not exist. When the witness testifies
evidence. That is what is produced by the that he has no knowledge, whether a fact
presentation of evidence. exists or not, then that is negative.
- But when a witness testifies that a fact
When the court considered the evidence presented exists, or that he testifies that he knows that
by the party in deciding a case, it is that proof a fact does not exist, that is positive
because of that proof produced by the evidence, evidence.
that's why evidence is the means of attaining proof or - When a witness testifies, “I don't know
it's a medium of proof and proof is the product of whether it was the accused that shot and
evidence. killed the victim or not”, that is negative.
Where does the proof produce? Which do you think is the more reliable evidence
- In the mind because when a judge is or trustworthy evidence, positive evidence or
convinced of the evidence presented by a negative evidence?
party there is now proof in the mind of the - Of course, it's positive evidence.
judge, and the court will decide the case
based on the proof created by the evidence How would you distinguish corroborative from
presented by a party. cumulative evidence?
- - When you say corroborative it implies that
How would you distinguish positive from there is more than one evidence referred to.
negative evidence? When does a witness give
positive evidence and when does a witness give How would you now define corroborative
negative evidence? evidence because it always implies two pieces of
- When a witness testifies in court that he evidence?
knows a fact exists. - It is an additional which of different kinds
from the previously presented evidence.
Is that positive or negative evidence? A witness When you say additional, that means there
testifies in court and he says, I know, based on was already evidence that was presented
my personal knowledge that a fact exists, is that earlier. That is what I can say additional
a positive testimony or negative? evidence of a different kind from the previous
- It is positive. evidence but which tends to prove the same
fact in issue.
Suppose a witness testifies that he knows for a - It is additional evidence of a different kind
fact based on his personal knowledge that a fact different from the evidence previously
does not exists, is that positive or negative presented but which tends to prove the same
evidence? fact and issue as the previous evidence.
- It is positive.
________________________________

Page 5 of 55
What about cumulative evidence? eyewitness testified, he was there at the scene of
- Cumulative evidence is an additional the crime, and he saw the accused shot and
evidence of the same kind which tends to killed the victim. Was it direct evidence or
prove the same fact and issue. circumstantial evidence?
- Of course, direct evidence.
Let us illustrate that. Let start with cumulative
evidence. When an eye witness testifies that he was What kind of evidence was presented by the
present at the scene of the crime, and he saw the expert witness?
accused shoot and kill the victim, that's one - The expert witness testified that he was able
evidence, suppose there are two eyewitnesses and to lift the fingerprints and footprints of the
the second eyewitness, eyewitness also testifies that accused from the scene of the crime
he was also there at the scene of the crime and he immediately after the crime was committed.
saw the accuse the same accuse, shot and kill the It is circumstantial evidence. So, additional
victim. It is a cumulative evidence because it is evidence with different kind but which tends
additional evidence of the same kind. to prove the same fact and issue, therefore,
it is corroborative evidence.
Let us say an eyewitness testified that he was there
at the scene of the crime. He saw the accused shot When is evidence admissible?
and killed the victim as a second witness the - Evidence is admissible when it is relevant
prosecution presented a fingerprint witness and that and competent.
expert witness testified that he examined the scene - So, take note, there are only two requisites
of the crime after the crime was committed. And then for the admissibility of evidence. It must be
he lifted the fingerprints and four footprints of the relevant and it must be competent.
accused from the scene of the crime immediately
after the crime was committed, so the expert witness When is it relevant? When is evidence relevant?
testified that he examined the scene of the crime - Evidence is relevant when it has relation to
immediately after the crime was committed and then the fact in the issues as to the evidence
he was able to lift fingerprints and footprints. The presented.
abuse was barefooted perhaps that's why there were -
footprints. So he testified that he was able to lift What happens when the evidence presented has
fingerprints and footprints belonging to the accused a relation to the fact that issue? What will the
at the scene of the crime. evidence accomplish if it has a relation to the
fact and issue?
Would that be corroborative evidence? - It will induce belief as to its existence or non-
- Yes - it is additional evidence, the testimony existence. That is when evidence is relevant.
of the expert witness is additional evidence When it is having such in relation to the fact
to prove which is of a different kind. that issue as to induce belief in the existence
or non-existence of the fact that the issue.
Why is it different kind? What kind of evidence That is when evidence is relevant when it
was presented by the first witness the does such a relation to the fact that the issue
eyewitness? has to induce belief in its existence or
- Since it is on his personal knowledge and nonexistence.
because of the crime and he saw the
accused shot and killed the victim with his When is evidence competent?
two eyes and two ears. - Evidence is competent if it is not excluded by
the Constitution by the law or by the rules of
What kind of evidence is that? Was it direct court.
evidence or circumstantial evidence? The
________________________________

Page 6 of 55
Is it required that both requisites must conquer would tend to establish the probability in any
for evidence to be admissible? Suppose if it is degree or the improbability of the fact in
relevant, because it has such a relation to the issue.
fact that issue as you will induce believe in its
existence or non-existence but there is a By proving a collateral matter, which is not an issue,
provision under the Rules of Court that excludes if, by proving a fact which is not in issue, but if by
that relevant evidence, is it admissible? Because proving that fact that it will tend to some degree to
it is relevant, but there's a provision in the Rules establish the probability of the fact of the issue or the
of Court that excludes, it is it admissible? improbability of the fact that issue then evidence on
- This is admissible, although it is relevant a collateral matter is admissible by way of an
because it is excluded by the rules okay. exception to the rule but only when it turns it tends to
Suppose the evidence is not relevant, establish to some degree the probability or
because it has no relation to the fact and improbability of the fact and issue. Of course it will
issue, but it is not excluded by the rules not prove the fact and issue, but it will tend to
there is no provision under the Rules, under establish the probability or improbability of the fact
the Constitution or under the law that and issue.
excludes it, is it admissible? Not admissible.
Evidence to be admissible must be both Based on that rule, or an exception, what kind of
relevant and competent. evidence do you think is evidence on a collateral
matter which will tend in some degree to
What is collateral matter? established the probability or improbability of the
- A collateral matter is a matter or any fact that fact and issue? What kind of evidence would that
is not a fact in issue. So, a collateral matter be? if evidence is intended to prove a fact which
simply means that that collateral matter is is not an issue at all, but if that evidence will then
not the fact in issue. Any matter that is not a to establish to some degree, the probability or
fact in issue is collateral matter. improbability of the fact that issue so what kind
of evidence do you think that is?
Is evidence on a collateral matter admissible? - That will be in the nature of circumstantial
- As a general rule, evidence on collateral evidence.
matter is not admissible.
When evidence or a collateral matter will tend to
So a party is not allowed or cannot present establish the probability or improbability of the fact
evidence to prove a fact which is not an issue. that issue that would be a circumstantial evidence.
What is the reason for that the general rule? Why So, when evidence on collateral matter is presented,
is evidence on collateral matter as a rule evidence is given presented to prove a fact which is
inadmissible in evidence? not an issue. But if you can, if fact which is not an
- The reason is obvious, why is a party issue is proved to be true, and that will tend to
prohibited presenting evidence to prove a establish the existence or nonexistence of the fact
fact which is not issue at all? Since you said and issue, then that evidence is admissible as
as general rule earlier, evidence on a circumstantial evidence.
collateral matter is inadmissible, and then I
may surmise you have an exception in mind. What will be proved would be collateral matter but by
proving the collateral matter, that evidence will also
So my question is, what is the exception to the tend to establish the probability or improbability of
rule that evidence on a collateral matter is the fact and issue itself. So that's circumstantial
inadmissible? evidence.
- That if it would be if the evidence on a
collateral matter would be admissible if it
________________________________

Page 7 of 55
So what is required, so that circumstantial evidence which is that it was the accused that shot and
will prove in fact an issue? because circumstantial killed the victim?
evidence is evidence that proves a collateral matter - What the expert testimony will prove is that
not the fact that the fact that issue, but it will appear the fingerprints taken match the fingerprints
on matter. So, what is required before circumstantial of the accused, given that the fingerprints
evidence made tend to prove the existence or non- match the fingerprints of the accused that
existence of the fact and issue? has a tendency to establish the probability
that accused was the one who committed
What will the court do so that the proof of collateral the crime.
matter will tend to establish the fact an issue. What is - Only the probability, the evidence of the
required, we're talking about circumstantial evidence fingerprints of belonging to the accused were
when circumstantial evidence is presented to prove a lifted from the scene of the crime
collateral matter. The Judge must make an immediately after the crime was committed
inference. So if a collateral matter is proven to exist, you can infer from that fact that it was
therefore the judge must make an inference from the probably the accused who shot and killed the
existence of the collateral matter the judge will make victim. So you need to make an inference.
an inference that the fact and issue also exists. - The Judge has to make an inference from
the fact that fingerprints belonging to the
Let us illustrate evidence on collateral matter, accused were lifted from the scene of the
which you said, is actually circumstantial crime.
evidence. Let us cite certain collateral matters. - The Judge may make an inference that
In a case for murder, so what is the fact that probably it was the accused that shot and
issue in a case for murder? killed the victim which is the fact and issue
- Whether or not the accused shot and killed because his fingerprints were lifted from the
the victim. scene of the crime immediately after the
crime was committed. That is the nature of
We are not yet talking about the qualifying circumstantial evidence.
circumstances but at least that is one of the factual
issues. Whether or not it was the accused that shot How would you distinguish now, circumstantial
and killed the victim so that's a fact in issue. When evidence from direct evidence?
the prosecution presented as a witness, the expert, - Direct evidence which establishes the fact
the expert witness who testified on that he lifted and issue without the need of an inference of
fingerprints and footprints belonging to the accused direct evidence that establishes the fact in
immediately after the crime at the scene of the crime issue
the testimony of the expert witnesses, is of course,
circumstantial evidence, because what is proved by What about circumstantial evidence?
the testimony of the expert witness is that it was the - It is an evidence on a collateral matter.
accused that shot and killed and victim, it was not. - Circumstantial evidence or is that is taken,
That is not what is proved, by the testimony of the through the inference that would be derived
expert witness what is proved by the testimony of the from you would be able to establish the
witness, is that there were fingerprints and footprints probability or the improbability of the issue at
at the scene of the crime belonging to the accused hand.
immediately after the crime was committed. So that - Circumstantial evidence is evidence of
is what is proved. certain facts from which the probability or
improbability of the fact that issue may be
Will that collateral matter now, after it being inferred as a matter of natural consequence
proved will tend to establish the fact in issue, or logical consequence.
________________________________

Page 8 of 55
- While direct evidence is evidence that The taking of the blood samples from the
proves, the fact in issue without the need of accused - Will that violate the rights of the
any inference. accused to be not be compelled to produce
evidence against himself because a blood
when an eye witness testifies, that he was there samples will be taken from him to be used as a
at the scene of the crime, and he saw the DNA test to prove that he was the one who raped
accused shoot and kill the victim, what kind of the victim? Will that violate so that it will not be
evidence is that? is that circumstantial evidence admissible in evidence because it violates the
or direct evidence? constitutional right of the accused not to be
- That is in the nature of direct evidence compelled to be a witness against himself?
because the testimony would tend to prove - In that case, that would be not violate his
the certainty of the issue at hand. rights, because it was established in
- When the judge hears the testimony, the jurisprudence, that the right against self-
judge will not have to make any inference incrimination is limited to testimonial
from that testimony, that it was the accused evidence.
who shot and kill the victim because the
witness himself testified that he saw the If blood is forcibly taken from the accused, that is not
accused shoot and kill the victim. testimonial compulsion to be used as evidence
- That testimony, that evidence, proves the against him. That is not testimonial compulsion,
fact in issue without the need of any which will violate the right of abuse and not to be
inference, without the need for the judge to compelled to be a witness against himself.
make any inference from the testimony that it Therefore, the results of the DNA test would be
was the accused who shot and killed the admissible in evidence, because the taking of the
victim. blood from the accused would not be in violation of
his rights not to be compelled to be witness against
That is direct evidence as distinguished from himself because what is prohibited is testimonial
circumstantial evidence, which is proof of certain compulsion that the accused be compelled to testify
facts from which the judge may infer, the existence to give testimonial evidence against himself. So
or non-existence of the fact in issue. that's one example.
When is evidence competent? When evidence is excluded by the Constitution,

- Evidence is said to be competent, if it is not let us say the accused was compelled to testify
excluded by the law or by the rules of courts against himself by the prosecution. will the
or by the constitution testimony of the accused be admissible in
evidence?
There is a provision under the Bill of Rights, that a - It will not be admissible in evidence because
person accused may not be compelled to be a it would directly contravene the constitutional
witness against himself. rights of the accused.
Okay, now blood is taken from the accused, for the What is the problem with the evidence?
blood samples to be used for DNA tests, to prove - It is not competent because it would be
that the accused raped the victim. So let's make this violative of the constitutional rights of the
a rape case. Suppose blood was taken from that accused against self-incrimination.
samples were taken from the accused so that it will
be used in a DNA test to prove that it will match the The evidence while it may be relevant, is
semen recovered from the sexual organ of the rape incompetent because it is excluded by the
victim. Constitution itself because the Constitution says that
any evidence obtained in violation of a constitutional
________________________________

Page 9 of 55
right of a person, especially of the accused is and properly denied by the other party is pleading
inadmissible in evidence. So that illustrates what is must be proved by evidence.
incompetent evidence.
Hearsay evidence may be relevant, it may be RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
relevant to the fact in issue, but it is not admissible,
why is hearsay evidence which may be relevant, Now, my question is, are there facts that need
inadmissible in evidence. not be proved?
- Yes. Those facts that are subject to judicial
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible by reason of notice need not be proved
incompetency. It falls under the nature of an - The facts that were already admitted by the
incompetent evidence. Why is it incompetent? It by adverse party need not be proved
violates the rule against the hearsay evidence. It - Facts that are presumed by the rules or by
violates the provision under the rules of court which law.
excludes hearsay evidence. So therefore, hearsay
evidence is incompetent and therefore inadmissible, There are three kinds of facts that need not be
although it may be relevant. proved:
1) Facts that are subject to judicial notice
Distinguish admissibility of evidence and weight 2) Facts that are admitted by the adverse party
of evidence. 3) Facts that are presumed by the rules or by
- Admissibility of evidence refers to the the law
relevance and competence of the evidence, What is a judicial notice?
while the weight of the evidence refers to the - It refers to the rules or a rule of court where
probative value of the evidence or the evidence to establish a fact is no longer
importance that's given to the evidence by needed.
the judge, after the evidence has been - These are facts that are of common
presented, as not only presented but knowledge. So, the court will not require a
admitted. So admissibility, pertains to the party who alleges that fact which is common
relevancy and competency of evidence, knowledge to present evidence to prove that
while weight of evidence refers to the degree faculties of common knowledge.
of importance, which gives evidence that - Another will be facts that are that are
that's already been admitted, because the expected to be known to the courts, in the
evidence was both relevant and competent. performance of their functions.
- Weight of evidence refers to the degree of - Facts that are known to judges because of
importance that the court gives to evidence their judicial function.
that is already admit, that the court has
already admitted because it was both The question is, why would record why would the
relevant and competent. The court will not court recognize the existence of certain facts without
determine the weight of evidence, if it is not requiring a party to present the evidence, you
admitted, in fact, if the evidence was mentioned already because the fact is of common
excluded, because what's the use of knowledge, it is known almost to everybody.
determining the weight of evidence if It was
not even admitted, it was either not relevant The judge may not require the party to present
or incompetent. evidence anymore to prove the fact which is of
- common knowledge or perhaps the fact is already
The general rule is that all facts alleged by a party in known to the judge or ought to be known to judge
his pleading must be proved by evidence. That's the because of his judicial function, because of his office
rule, not all facts alleged by one party in his pleading, as a judge, he should know in fact, so, we need not
________________________________

Page 10 of 55
require the party to present evidence. what else? party who alleges that when a man jumps from the
and or because the fact is capable of unquestionable 10th floor of a building, that he will fall down to the
demonstration. ground, the court cannot require the party to present
evidence to prove that if the if the judge wants to can
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts, try it himself, to be convinced that when he jumps
that the judge is allowed to take or act upon without from the 10th floor of a building that he will fall down,
proof because they are already known to the judge rather than go up? No. Because of the existence of
or ought to be known to the judge because of his the law of gravity. The court cannot require a party to
official function. Or because these facts are common prove that the law of gravity exists. Okay, or that the
knowledge or because these facts are capable of sun will rise from the east the following morning, the
unquestionable demonstration. Okay, so that's court cannot require a party to prove that because it
judicial notice. is capable of unquestionable demonstration. These
facts, the court is mandated to take judicial of those
A judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts facts that you enumerated earlier.
that the judge is allowed to take or act upon without
proof because these facts are already known to the Are there other facts that the court may take
judge that ought to be known to the judge, because judicial notice, in the exercise of its discretion?
of his official function, because these facts are What is a judicial admission?
common knowledge or because these facts are Under the amended rules, a judicial admission is
capable of unquestionable demonstration. defined as an admission made by a party, oral or
written, made in the course of the proceedings of the
So you were saying earlier that some facts that same case have made in the course of the
as to certain facts, judicial notice is mandatory? proceedings of the same case.
Is that what you were about to say earlier?
- Yes. There was a change in the terminology from
verbal to oral. What was the reason? What do
Would you give us certain facts, which the court you think, was the reason by the Supreme Court?
shall take judicial notice? - The court has to change the term from
- The existence and territorial extent of states verbal to oral to make it more accurate, as
their political history, form of government, distinguished from written.
symbols of nationalities, etc.
What is meant by the phrase that “The admission
When the facts that you mentioned are relevant to a verbal or oral or written made in the course of
pending case before the court must not require the the proceedings in the same case”?
party to prove them, let's say If the existence of - It should be made by a party in the course of
China, as a country. The court cannot require a party the proceedings of our case, in the same
to present evidence to prove this facts regarding case, so why still say in the same case.
China, because the court is mandated to take judicial
notice of this facts regarding China. When do you say also the proceedings? Of
course, it is because of the proceedings or a
When it is relevant, in a case, that when a man case. Why, say, in the same case?
jumps from the bank floor of a building, even fell - Let us say, in one in a case, the plaintiffs in
down and not go up? The court need not require a his complaint, or let's make it the defendant
party to prove that when a when a man jumps from in his answer. So the defendant in his
the 10th floor of a building, that he will fall down and answer made an admission. An admission in
not go up. Because the fact the existence of the law his answer. That is a written admission made
of nature, gravity is capable of unquestionable by a party.
demonstration. No. So the court must not require a
________________________________

Page 11 of 55
Would you consider that in the course of the - The rule is that for extra judicial admissions,
proceedings of the case? If the admission is it has to be proven and it has to be offered
made by the defendant, in his answer to the as evidence.
complaint? Would you consider that made in the - It may be given in evidence against the party
course of the proceeding? who made the admission, it may be given in
- Yes. evidence.
In his answer, your defendant made an admission of But you said the rule with regards to judicial is
the fact. When, by the way, when you say admission that admission is that it does not require proof.
is implied? That the fact admission is adverse to the So what does that mean? May judicial admission
party who maintain admission, you do not use the be given in evidence against the party who made
word admission. If you say something that is the admission?
favorable to you, you are not admitting that fact that - No, because a judicial admission does not
is favorable for you. When you say you admit, in fact, require proof. It may not be given in
what is implied there is that that fact is adverse to evidence.
you to the party making the admission. - A judicial admission does not require proof.
So it may not be given in evidence.
So when the defendant makes a written - The court will consider judicial admission
admission in his answer of a fact with this against the party who made the judicial
adverse to it. So would it be in the course of the admission even if it is not given in evidence
proceedings of the case? Is there a balance against him, that is what is meant by does
where law? -Yes. not require proof.
So, we now assume that the defendant made a
written admission in his answer of a fact which is Since what was admitted is adverse to that party
adverse to him and which you said was made in the who made the admission it will be favorable to the
course of the proceedings of the case. other party, the party who is benefited by the
admission need not present in evidence because
What is meant by in the same case? Would you that admission, that judicial admission is going to be
explain that? When does it become a judicial part of the case because in fact it was made by the
admission? defendant is answered
- We say that was made in the course of the
proceedings of the case, because it was It is part of the record of the case, the court has to
made in the answer file by the defendant. So consider that admission. Even if the party benefited
it was made in the course of the proceedings by that admission. Because it is already part of the
of the case. But by itself, that does not make record, the court is required to consider admission,
the admission, a judicial admission. because it is a judicial admission. It is a part of
record because even if it is not given in evidence by
The judicial admission, an admission made by any the party benefited by it, the court has to consider.
party or already been made in the course of the
proceedings, in the same case, best, which is a But suppose the admission made by a party it
judicial admission. That is not required proof. So that because of the proceeding of the case was around
is the rule. that same case, would it still be a judicial admission
because all courts in the Philippines are now
A judicial admission does not require proof. recording everything that he said. And everything
Would you explain what that means? Before you that said by the party, by his witnesses by the judge
answer that, let me make a contrast. What about in the course of the proceedings of the case, are
an extra judicial admission? What is the rule? recorded. Now, everything.
________________________________

Page 12 of 55
So if a party makes an oral admission in the course So it must be given in evidence. But in case number
of the proceedings of a case, it will be recorded. If one, where the admission was made in the course of
the admission was made in the course of the the proceedings, in case number one, that admission
proceedings of the case, even if it is oral, that is a judicial admission and it does not require proof, it
admission made by a party need not be given in may not be given in evidence.
evidence, it does not require proof. That is what is
meant by need not require proof it will not be given in Now, you mentioned earlier that a judicial
evidence. admission is conclusive. What do you mean by
that?
The court is mandated to consider that admission, - Admission is made by the party and we said
even if it is not given in evidence because if this earlier that the fact admitted will always be
would well be part of the record of the case, even if adverse to the party making the admission.
the party benefited by the admission does not give it
in evidence before us to consider in in deciding the If admission is a judicial admission, you said it is
case. That is the nature of a judicial admission. It conclusive. So, what does that mean? What a party
does not require proof. It may not be given in who made the admission? What can the party who
evidence. made the admission do?
- Because it is conclusive, the admission is
But an extra judicial admission may be given in conclusive.
evidence against the party who made the - You will not be allowed to present evidence
admission. Who will give it in evidence? to disprove the fact that he has already
- The party who is benefited by the extra admitted in the course of the proceedings of
judicial admission, but the party benefited by the case, it is conclusive.
the extra judicial admission must give it in
evidence. What he admitted may turn out not to be true. But if it
- Otherwise the court cannot consider it. It was is a judicial admission, it cannot present evidence to
not part of the record of the case. prove that what he admitted was not true. Because it
is conclusive upon him. Whether what he admitted is
Therefore, the party benefited by admission must true or not.
give it in evidence against the party who made the
admission will be based on judicial admission. So an He admits something that is adverse to him, whether
admission made by party because of the it is true or not, if his admission is a judicial
proceedings of case number one may be given in admission, it is conclusive upon him, we cannot
evidence. present evidence to prove what I admitted is actually
not true. We cannot present evidence, he is not
So in case number two, but it must be given in allowed to present evidence to disprove what he has
evidence because in case number two, that judicially admitted. That is what is meant by
admission made by a party in the course of the conclusive.
proceedings of case number one, in case number
two, it is not a judicial admission, it is an extra judicial But if the admission is disputable, which is
admission, it is not part of the record in case number distinguished from a conclusive admission if it is
two, so the party benefited by the admission must disputable. The party who was supposed to have
give it in evidence. made the admission is allowed to present evidence
to disprove the fact that he was supposed to have
In case number two, although the admission was admitted because the admission is disputable.
made in because of the proceedings of our case, in
case number one, in case number two, it is not a Is there an exception to the rule that a judicial
judicial admission. It is an extra judicial admission. admission is conclusive?
________________________________

Page 13 of 55
- Judicial evidence is as a rule conclusive. - He is misunderstood, he, in fact, did not

- It means that the party who made the make any admission. So he must show to
admission cannot present evidence to the court that what was imputed to him as an
disprove or to contradict the fact that he has admission is not, in fact, an admission.
already admitted judicially.
Let us say a party says assuming that the fact A
That's the general rule, because a judicial exist. And then later on the adverse party wins, you
admission is conclusive. So he is not allowed to admitted, you judicially admitted that fact A exist. So
contradict the fact that we are so when we admit what may the party who were supposed to have
that's the general rule. But you said there are made admission say to contradict? He was only
exceptions to the general rule. So how may assuming; he was just making a hypothetical
judicial admission be contradicted? statement. Assuming that fact A exists, he is not
- The rule is that it cannot be contradicted. admitting that fact A exists, because he said,
That is the general rule. assuming even assuming the fact A exists, he is not
admitting. So we can say that I was not making an
But how may or in what instances may a judicial admission. So he must show to the court that the
admission be contradicted? imputed admission was not in fact made. Two ways
- First, it may be contradicted meaning the of corroborating a judicial admission.
judicial admission may be contradicted by
showing that it was made through a palpable
mistake. Second way, admission was not, in RULE 129, SEC. 4, JUDICIAL ADMISSION
fact made.
The general rule is that a judicial admission is
conclusive upon the party who made the admission.
So, as a rule, a judicial admission is conclusive upon
the party who made the admission.
Let us first discuss the first way of contradicting
a judicial admission by showing that it was made What does that mean?
through palpable mistake. What does palpable - It means that the party who made the
mean? admission cannot present evidence to
- It is something that can be touched. So when disprove that what he has judicially admitted.
the admission was made through a palpable What the party had admitted may not be
mistake, the mistake is so obvious or patent. true. You may have evidence to disprove
Now, it's very obvious that it was only made that what he judicially admitted, but he will
mistakes, then that may defeat what was not be allowed. As a rule, he will not be
initially made. allowed to present evidence to disprove what
he has judicially admitted.
What about the second?
- Party benefited by the admission will say, Now, are there exceptions to this rule? Are there
that was conditionally and that the party who instances when a judicial admission may be
made the admission cannot present contradicted by the party who made the
evidence to contradict it, because that was a admission?
judicial admission. - A judicial admission may be contradicted by
showing that it was made through palpable
So what will be party who made the admission mistake.
do?
- He may then show that is not what he In what other way?
admitted. - That no such admission was made.
________________________________

Page 14 of 55
palpable, also of tangible. If something is

Is that all that is provided? What is the second palpable, that means that thing can be
one on contradicting a judicial admission? What touched. So, a palpable mistake is an
is there to contradict if there was no admission obvious mistake. It is a clear and patent
mistake. So by showing to the court that the
made?
admission was made through palpable
- When something which is said or written by mistake, that it is obvious that it was just a
a party is taken out of context by the court mistake, it was not intended to be an
and considered it as an admission, which the admission. It was done through a clear
party does not intend to be an admission. mistake. That is what is meant by palpable.
- Or by showing that the imputed admission, it
is not the court which will impute that the Now, by showing that the imputed admission, it
admission was made, but the adverse party means that the adverse party, the party benefited by
who is benefited by the admission. When the admission, is saying that the party or the other
one party makes an admission, the other party has made a judicial admission. But the party
party is benefited by it. Because everytime a who was being imputed to have made the admission
party makes an admission, he is supposed will say, “No, what you are saying as a judicial
to admit something that is adverse to him. admission is not actually an admission. I never
You don’t admit something that is favourable intended to make the admission. There was no
to you. intention on my part to make the admission. What
- When one party makes an admission or a you are imputing as an admission is not an
judicial admission, that means that what is admission.”
admitted is adverse to the party who made
the admission, since it is adverse to the party Let us say, one party say, assuming that the Fact A
who made the admission, the other party is exists, the other party would say, “So you are
benefited by such admission. So the other admitting that A exists.” No, because one party is
party who is benefited by the admission will just assuming that Fact A exists. So, if the other
be the one who will make the imputation that party insists that that is an admission that Fact A
the other party has made an admission. And exists, the party who is supposed to have made the
of course the party who is said to have made admission can contradict the admission by showing
the admission will contradict what he is that the imputed admission is not in fact, an
supposed to have admitted by showing to admission. It is not an admission.
the court that the imputed admission was in
fact not made by him. That is how a judicial admission may be
contradicted. As we discussed last meeting, a
What do you understand by a palpable mistake, judicial admission does not require proof. It does not
by showing that the admission was made require proof, unlike an extrajudicial admission,
through a palpable mistake? What do you which may be given in evidence against the party
understand by the word palpable? who made the admission, a judicial admission does
- Palpable mistake means something that is not require proof.
noticeable. Something palpable means
something that is obvious. It is clear. What does that mean that it does not require
proof?
What is the literal meaning of the word palpable? - It means that the party benefited by the
When you say something is palpable, what do admission did not give it in evidence against
you mean? the party who made the admission. Because
- It can be felt. the judicial admission, since it was made by
the party in the course of the proceedings of
What do you mean when you say something is the case, whether it is written or oral, is part
tangible? of the record of the case.
- Tangible is synonymous with palpable. So, it - So, there is no need for the party benefited
is very easy to see that there was an error. by the admission to give it in evidence
Palpable means it is capable of being against the party who made the admission
touched. So that is the literal meaning of because it is already the admission, since it
________________________________

Page 15 of 55
is made in the course of the proceeding of What about documentary evidence? What are
the case. It is part of the record of the case. document as evidence?
- In the old provision, under the old rules, or
The court must consider the admission in deciding before the 2019 amendments, documentary
the case, without the party benefited by the evidence are those consist of writings or
admission having to give it in evidence. That is what other materials containing letters, words,
is meant by the rule that the judicial admission does numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of
not require proof. But an extrajudicial admission may written expression. But that provision has
be given in evidence against the party who made the been amended.
admission. Because if an extrajudicial admission is
not part of the record of the case, the court would not Under the new rules, documentary evidence is
know that there was an admission if it was not given evidence consists of writings, recordings,
in evidence by the party who is benefited by the photographs or any material containing letters,
admission. words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols or their
equivalent or other modes of written expression
offered as proof of their contents. Photographs
RULE 130: RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray
films, motion pictures or videos.
There are three kinds or forms of evidence. Object
evidence was once called real evidence. It was The provision on documentary evidence was
changed from real evidence to object evidence, amended. Before, documentary evidence consists
because if you classify one form of evidence as real only of writings or any materials containing letters,
evidence, it is as if the other forms of evidence are words, numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of
not real evidence. That is why the court changed the written expression offered as proof of their contents,
term real evidence to object evidence, which is more but under the amended provision, documentary
accurate. The second kind or form of evidence is a evidence already includes writings, photographs,
documentary. The third one is testimonial. So, the recordings, or any material containing letters, words,
three kinds of evidence are object evidence, sounds (this is new), any materials containing letters,
documentary evidence and testimonial evidence. words, even sounds, numbers, figures, symbols or
their equivalent or other modes of written expression
Now, what are object as evidence? offered as proof of their contents.
- Object evidence are those evidence
addressed to the senses of the court. So, take note, documentary evidence is offered as
proof of its contents. The contents is what is being
What may be done with regards to object offered in evidence, as evidence of the contents of
evidence? Since object evidence is one that is any material. It could be a paper, a piece of wood, or
addressed to the senses of the court, so what any material containing words, letters, or sounds. So,
can be done by the court with regards to object it could be anything, like a disc, or any material
evidence? containing recorded sounds would be considered as
- These object evidence can be seen, documentary evidence under the amended rules.
touched, heard and smelled. These evidence
may be exhibited to the court for the court to Now, when you say photographs, what are
examine. Now since object evidence is included under the word photograph?
addressed to senses of the court, the offeror, - Photograph includes still pictures, drawings,
or the party offering the object evidence, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or
may exhibit the evidence before the court to videos. So, documentary evidence has been
view or examine it, since it is addressed to broadened to include many things.
the senses of the court.
Before the 2019 amendments, we have what was
Can you give an example of an object evidence? called the best evidence rule. How is the best
- A gun used by the accused in killing the victim in a evidence rule now designated?
homicide or murder case, may be presented or - Under the old provision, the best evidence
exhibited to the court to be examined and for it to be rule is when the subject of inquiry in a case
viewed. is the content of the document, no evidence
shall be admissible, other than the original
________________________________

Page 16 of 55
document. Under the new or amended rule, What is more complicated would be the exceptions
the best evidence rule is now designated as to the original document rule. The rule says only the
the original document rule. original of the document may be admitted or may be
presented and admitted in evidence if the subject of
Reminder: Get a copy of the recorded lecture of inquiry is the contents of a document.
Attorney Sigh.
Are there instances when other evidence may be
What is the reason for the change in presented in view of the original document?
nomenclature from best evidence rule to original - Yes, the rule provides for 5 exceptions.
document rule according to Atty. Singh? These are as follows:
- The reason given by the Supreme Court was 1) when the original is lost or destroyed or
that, under the old rules, it is called the best cannot be produced in court, without bad
evidence rule. When you say, best evidence faith on the part of the offeror;
rule, it is implied that since there are three 2) when the original is in the custody or
kinds of evidence such as the object under the control of the party against
evidence, documentary evidence and whom the evidence is offered, and the
testimonial evidence, the best evidence latter fails to produce it after reasonable
which is the original of a document is the notice, or the original cannot be obtained
evidence which can be presented among all by local judicial processes or
kinds of evidence. procedures;
3) when the original consists of numerous
But this is not the case. The original of a document is accounts or other documents which
not the best evidence rule which can be presented to cannot be examined in court without
prove a fact. This is not what is meant by the best great loss of time and the fact sought to
evidence rule. It is not the best evidence. But it is the be established from them is only the
only evidence which may be admitted if the subject general results of the whole;
of an inquiry is the contents of a document. So, to 4) when the original is public record in the
call it the best evidence is not accurate. That is why custody of a public officer or is recorded
the SC has to change the name of the rule from best in a public office; and
evidence, which is not accurate, because the original 5) when the original is not closely-related to
of the document is not the best evidence among the a controlling issue.
other kinds of evidence, but it is the only evidence
that may be admitted if the contents of the subject of The last exception is a new provision. That is a new
the inquiry in the case is the contents of a document. exception to the original document rule.
Only in that limited sense. So, according to the SC
the more accurate name of the rule would be original What do you mean when you speak about the
document rule, and not the best evidence but the first exception that the secondary evidence may
original document rule. be presented if the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court
What is the original document rule? without bad faith on the part of the offeror? What
- The original document rule provides that is meant by without bad faith on the part of the
when the subject matter of an inquiry is the offeror?
contents of the document, no evidence is - That phrase “without bad faith on the part of
admissible except for the original document the offeror” follows the line “when the original
itself, subject to exceptions. Under this rule, has been lost or destroyed or cannot be
documents refer to all kinds of documents. I produced in court without bad faith on the
have to repeat that. part of the offeror”.
When we discuss later on the parol evidence rule, So what does that phrase “without bad faith on
the parol evidence rule would apply only to contracts, the part of the offeror” mean?
not to all documents. But the original document rule - The loss or destruction of the original
applies to all kinds of documents including contracts. document must not be imputed to the offeror.
So, when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of The offeror is not at fault. He did not cause
a document, then only the original of the document the loss or destruction of the document or
may be admitted in evidence. That's the general rule. the unavailability of the original.
________________________________

Page 17 of 55
the custody or under the control of the party

Now, that is what is meant by the phrase, “without against whom the evidence is offered?
bad faith, on the part of the offeror. The loss or - The offeror must prove that the original
destruction of the original must not be due to the exists, that the document is under the control
fault of the party offering the evidence. of the adverse party, that he or she must
have reasonable notice to produce it. If after
So, in the case of the loss, destruction, or such notice and after satisfactory proof of its
unavailability of the original, what must the existence, he or she fails to produce the
offeror do to admit the secondary evidence? document, the secondary evidence may be
What must the offeror first show to the court presented in the case of its loss.
before the court would admit the secondary
evidence? First, the offeror must show to the court that the
- The offeror must prove the existence and original is in the custody of the adverse party, and
execution of the original document. that the offeror must show the due existence or
execution of the original, and must show to the court
What else must the offeror show to the court that the original is in the custody of or under the
before the court will admit secondary evidence? control of the adverse party, and the adverse party
- First, the offeror must show the existence or was given sufficient or reasonable notice to produce
execution of the original document. Second, the original, and the adverse party failed to produce
the offeror must show the unavailability or the original despite reasonable notice.
the cause of the unavailability of the original
document. Finally, the unavailability of the After showing all of these, what secondary
original document was not due to his bad evidence may be presented by the offeror in case
faith. The offeror must show to the court the the original is in the custody or under the control
loss, destruction or unavailability of the of the adverse party who may refuse to produce
original and that it was not due to the fault of it?
the offeror. - The secondary evidence that may be
produced by the offeror is the copy of the
What secondary evidence may be presented to original, the recital of the contents of the
the court and admitted by the court in case the original in some authentic document or by
original cannot be produced in court? the testimony of the witness, in the order
- The party may be allowed to present stated.
secondary evidence in the form of the
original. He may present a copy or by the It is the same as when there is loss, destruction or
recital of its contents in some document, or unavailability of the original.
by the testimony of witness in the order
stated. Supposed the original is composed of numerous
accounts which cannot be examined in court
What do you mean by “in the order stated”? without great loss of time, and the fact sought to
- The offeror must comply with the order of be established is only the general result of the
presentation of secondary evidence as whole, what secondary evidence may be
stated under the rule. presented?
- The offeror may present the contents of such
The offeror must first show to the court that there no evidence in form of a chart, summary of
copy of the original is available, before he may calculation.
present the recital of the contents of the original in an
authentic document. Or if the offeror cannot present The summary of the numerous accounts may be
the testimony of a witness, if without showing to the presented, instead of presenting all the accounts
court that a copy of the original is not available, and which may be voluminous, what the offeror will
that there is no recital of the content of the original in present is a secondary evidence which is just the
an authentic document. summary.
What should be shown to the court first, before Aside from a summary, what else may be
secondary evidence may be presented by the presented in lieu of the original?
offeror in case the original of the document is in
________________________________

Page 18 of 55
- A chart or just a calculation may be contents of a document, no evidence shall be

presented. So summary, chart or calculation admitted other than the original document itself. So,
may be presented. it is important for all of us to know what documents
are considered original.
Supposed the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or which is kept in a Can you tell us what are considered original
public office, what secondary evidence may be documents?
presented? - Let’s start with photograph, which is one kind
- In this case, the secondary evidence which of a documentary evidence. The original of a
may be presented is the certified true copy of photograph includes the negative or any
the original. This shall be issued by the print therefrom. So this may be presented in
public officer who has custody of the public evidence.
records.
What else are considered original of a
Why can’t the original of the public record in the photograph?
custody of a public officer be presented? - The stored images in a computer or a similar
- The original of the public record cannot be device.
presented because public records cannot be
removed from the place where they are kept. The word photograph also includes still pictures,
drawings on paper or on any material or stored
What is that rule which states that the public images. Images may be stored in a computer or any
records cannot be removed from the office where similar device which are also considered as
they are kept? photographs readable by sight.
- It is called the irremovability of public
records. You cannot just request for the X-ray films are also considered photographs, which
original of a public record, so, in lieu of the may be presented in evidence. The original of a
original which cannot be taken out from the photograph, x-ray films, motion pictures and videos
office where it is kept, a certified true copy of are considered photographs.
the original may be presented as secondary
evidence. What is considered the original of a document?
- An original of a document is the document
The last exception is when the original is not closely itself or any counterpart intended to have the
related to a controlling issue. same effect by a person executing or issuing
it.
(I am actually puzzled by the new exception. So,
when the original is not closely related to the Under the old rules, the first in the list of original
controlling issue in the case, why present it at all! document is one, the content of which is the subject
Even if the original is supposedly available, that you of the inquiry.
do not have to present the secondary evidence. But
the problem really is that the original is not closely In my opinion it is the document which was executed
related to the controlling issue in the case, which by the parties, the documents which was issued by
means, it is irrelevant. So, there really is no need to the parties are original documents, or any
present it.) counterpart intended by the party to produce the
same effect as the original, intended to produce the
You will also notice, there is no secondary evidence same effect.
that may be presented in lieu of the original if the
original is not closely related to the controlling issue What is a counterpart? Kindly give an example of
in the case. There is no mention of a secondary a counterpart.
evidence when the original is not available. It was - An example is a duplicate.
only mentioned as an additional exception to the
original document rule when the original is not What is a duplicate?
closely related to the controlling issue. - A duplicate is a counterpart produced by the
same impression as the original, or from the
Since we are talking about the original of a same matrix, or by means of photography,
document, when the subject of an inquiry is the including enlargements and miniatures, or by
________________________________

Page 19 of 55
mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by is therefore admissible to the same extent as

chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent the original, whether the copy has been
techniques which accurately reproduce the enlarged or reduced.
original.
- A duplicate is a counterpart produced from Are there other ways of producing a duplicate?
the same impression as to the original. - By mechanical or electronic re-recording, by
chemical reproduction or other equivalent
What is an example of something produced by techniques which accurately reproduce the
the same impression? What is meant by this original.
impression?
- They pertain to the copies of the original. So We do not know these things yet. Anyway, for the
photocopies would now be considered purpose of passing the exam, you have to memorize
because later on, who will say that a this, even if you do not fully understand. I believe
duplicate is admissible to the same extent as that these are new provisions and there is no
the original. jurisprudence yet. So, the questions which will be
taken from this would be codal.
Let’s assume a photocopy of the original is produced
from the same impression as the original. A Please state the parol evidence rule.
photocopy of the original is a duplicate. Will this - Under the rules, parol evidence is when the
photocopy be admissible to the same extent as terms of an agreement had been reduced
the original? into writing, it is considered as containing all
the terms agreed upon and there can be, as
Later on, we would say that the duplicate is between the parties and their successors in
admissible to the same extent as the original. Is a interest, no evidence of such terms other
photocopy of an original produced from the than the contents of a written agreement.
same impression as the original? Is this now the
rule? To what does the pronoun “it” refer?
- The rule now states that the duplicate is - It refers to the agreement executed.
admissible in evidence to the same extent,
as the original. This implies that the original Although there may be other terms agreed upon,
is produced from the same impression, and although they were not reduced into writing, then
that the second product of the same they will not be considered as part of the terms
impression would also be an original. because the written agreement is considered to
contain all the terms agreed upon. And no evidence
But that is not a photocopy, because a photocopy is of such terms agreed upon is admissible, other than
not produced by the same impression as the original. the contents of the written agreement. So, this is the
The original was not produced by any impression. way the parol evidence rule is stated.
But a duplicate is one that is produced by the same
impression, as the original was produced. This imply In what kind of documents is the parol evidence
that the original was produced by an impression, and rule applicable? Does it apply to all kinds of
then another copy was produced by the same documents?
impression. That second copy would be a duplicate - No, it only applies to certain documents.
and it is admissible to the same extent as the first
copy produced by the same impression. An affidavit is a written document. Will the parol
evidence apply to an affidavit?
This is something to think about, since there is no - No, it does not, because the rule states that
jurisprudence yet. “when the contract is reduced into writing,
then the terms of agreement…” so, it applies
How else may a duplicate be produced by the only when there is an agreement. There are
same impression as the original? no terms agreed upon in an affidavit. Only
- It may be produced from the same matrix one party is executing it. Of course, it
from which the original was produced. A requires two parties to agree.
duplicate may be produced by photography,
or through Xerox machine. Anything By express provision, a last will and testament,
produced by photography is a duplicate and which is actually not a contract because it is
________________________________

Page 20 of 55
executed by only one party, but for the purposes of prove those other terms that we agreed
parol evidence rule, a last will and testament is upon. But we did not reduce it into writing.”
considered as a written agreement. This is not allowed, and is prohibited under
the parol evidence rule. Because to prove
Parol evidence applies only to written contracts or the other terms agreed upon, you have to
agreements, and to a last will and testament by present evidence other than the contents of
express provision of the rules. When a party to that the written agreement, because what you
agreement wants to prove what the terms are agreed can prove by the contents of the written
upon between him and the other party, he may agreement are the terms which the parties
present in evidence the contents of the written agreed upon.
agreement to prove what were the terms agreed
upon, between him and the other party. He is not So, under the parol evidence rule, no evidence is
allowed to present another evidence to prove the admissible to prove the terms agreed upon, other
terms agreed upon. than the contents of the written agreement. So this is
different from the original document.
The party is limited to the contents of the same
written agreement to prove the terms agreed upon When we speak of the original document which
between him and the adverse party. We cannot may be presented in evidence, it is the original copy,
present other evidence outside the contents of the to prove the contents of that document, because the
written agreement to prove that, aside from those subject of an inquiry is the contents of that
terms agreed upon which were reduced into writing. document. Then, only the original of the document
This is prohibited. That is what is called the parol may be presented. Under the parol evidence rule, we
evidence. presume that the original is presented in court.
A party who wants to prove the agreement between What we are concerned with in the parol evidence
the parties which has been reduced into writing, he rule is the contents of the document, and not
may present only an evidence of the contents of the whether it is original or not or whether the original is
written agreement. Any evidence that is presented to the one being presented in court; in parol evidence,
prove any evidence other than the contents of the we want to prove that the terms agreed upon and
written agreement that is presented to prove that the were reduced in writing are the contents of the
parties agreed on other terms, that is prohibited by agreement and which is assumed to be the original.
the parol evidence.
Are there instances when the terms agreed upon
Parol evidence is also referred to as extrinsic by the parties may be modified or explained or
evidence. added to not by the terms of the agreement? Are
But there may be another written agreement which is there instances where parol evidence may be
different from the written agreement, where the used to modify, explain or to add to the terms of
terms agreed upon by the parties were contained. the agreement?
So, there is a separate written agreement. This - Yes.
would also be considered as parol evidence.
Under the old rules, a party is allowed to modify,
explain or add to the terms of a written agreement if
he puts in issue in his pleading.
What is an agreement? Under the NEW rules, a party may present

- There is an agreement when there is evidence to modify, explain, or add to the terms
meeting of the mind between two parties. of the written agreement if he puts in issue in
This may not be written. So, when the a verified pleading. So, if a party now wants to later
parties reduced the terms agreed upon into on present parol evidence, he should allege it in a
writing, then, there is now a written verified pleading those he wants to prove by parol
agreement. And if there is one party in the evidence. The instances are:
agreement who wants to prove the terms 1) when there is intrinsic ambiguity mistake, or
they agreed upon, a party cannot say, “But imperfection in the agreement
we agreed on other terms aside from those 2) failure of the written agreement to express
that we reduced into writing. So, I want to the true intent of the parties
________________________________

Page 21 of 55
3) the validity of the written agreement

4) the existence of other terms agreed upon by Note the last exception: The existence of other
the parties or their successors in interest terms agreed to by the parties after the execution
after the execution of the written agreement of the agreement.
First exception: the party who wants to present If the parties after executing a written agreement
parol evidence must first put in issue in a verified they agreed again on other terms, then parol
pleading the existence of intrinsic ambiguity, evidence may be presented to prove those other
mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement terms agreed upon provided that it is put in issue the
- What is an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or existence of those other terms in the verified
imperfection as distinguished from extrinsic? pleading of the party.
Note, an extrinsic ambuigy, mistake, or
imperfection cannot be an exception in the Rules on interpretation of documents:
parol evidence rule. This rule only applies only when there is
inconsistency.
Intrinsic means that the ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection is not patent or not obvious on the Note to apply the rules on interpretation of
face of the agreement. It could not be determined documents only when the document is subject to
by just reading the agreement because the different interpretations (when it's vague or when
agmbiguity, mistake or imperfection is hidden. As there's ambiguity). If the meaning is clear, no need to
oppose to extrinsic, you'll know immediately that interpret:
there's ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection.
Inconsistency between Which should prevail
Illustration of intrinsic ambiguity: in the last will General provision v. Particular
and testament (last will and testament is covered by particular provision
the parol evidence rule), the testator stated that he is Handwritten v. printed Handwritten words
giving his house and lot situated in a specific words
address in Makati City to his niece, Maria Ramirez. Interpretation against a Interpretation in favor of
Here, is there an ambiguity? None. natural right v. in favor of natural right
natural right
Suppose, later on in the probate, there are 2 nieces
of the testator by the name of Maria Ramirez. There Suppose the document is written in characters or
is now an ambiguity: which one of the 2 nieces is the in a language that the judge do not understand,
one being given the house and lot. This ambiguity is how may the judge interpret the provisions of the
intrinsic. document?
- The judge may consult or rely on testimony
Suppose you are one of the Maria Ramirez and you under oath of a person who is skilled in
believe that the house and lot is given for you. Can deciphering on the characters/language.
you prove that you are the one referred to by the This is an expert witness.
testator if you will be limited by the contents of the
will? No. So, you can use parol evidence following Provisions of a document in case of ambiguity may
the first exception. You put in issue in your verified also be construed by the court using usage (meaning
pleading that intrinsic ambiguity in the last will and that is usually attributed to a word/phrase commonly
testament in a verified pleading. Let us say before used or understanding that word).
the testator died you receive from him letters stating
that when he dies, he will leave to you the house and
lot in Makati. You can now present these letters to TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
prove that you are the Maria Ramirez being referred
to in the will. Qualifications of witnesses: Who may be a
witness?
Why is it that when the ambiguity is extrinsic you - All persons who can perceive, are
are not allowed to present parol evidence? perceiving, and can make their own
- Because if it's extrinsic, the perception known to others (the court/judge)
ambiguity/mistake/imperfection should have may be a witness.
been immediately corrected.
________________________________

Page 22 of 55
Qualifications of a witness
1) the ability to perceive Under the new rules: During the marriage,
2) the ability to make known his perception to the husband or the wife cannot testify for or
the court/judge (because it's the court who against the other without the consent of the
will receive the testimony of the witness affected spouse, except:
a) in civil case by one against the other
How does a person perceive? b) in a criminal case for a crime
- When it occurs to his senses (sight, feeling, committed by one against the other,
hearing, taste, smell). A person perceives or the latter's direct
through his senses. descendants/ascendant
- If a person has at least one of these senses
and he has the ability to make known what This disqualification applies only during the marriage.
he has perceived through that sense, he is
qualified to be a witness Who is the "affected spouse"?
- If he cannot hear and can't see, but can still - The spouse who is a party in a case. The
smell, he can testify on what he smelled. other spouse who is not a party may not
testify for or against the affected spouse
Those above are the only 2 qualifications. A religious without the affected spouse's consent. Thus,
or political belief is not a disqualification, nor even if the other spouse wants to testify for
absence of belief. or against the affected spouse, the affected
spouse may object to the testimony of the
Suppose you are a devil worshipper; you're still other spouse. This rule is favorable to the
qualified as long as you can perceive and can make affected spouse. The affected spouse may
known your perception to the court. If you're atheist, not want the other spouse to be involved.
that will also not disqualify you as a witness. - Of course, the other spouse may testify if the
affected spouse consents to the testimony.
If you have been convicted of an offense, as a rule
that is not a disqualification. The only exception is Exceptions:
when a person has been convicted of the crime of 1) in civil case by one against the other: here,
perjury or falsification of document is disqualified why would you disqualify the other spouse if
from being a subscribing witness to a last will and the action is between them?
testament and therefore later on disqualified in 2) in a criminal case for a crime committed by
testifying in the probate of the last will and one against the other:
testament.
Why is this stated differently?
As to what facts may a witness testify? - Note, in civil case it says "by one against the
- To facts that are personally known to the other"; in criminal case, we don't say "by one
witness; those of his personal knowledge against the other: but "committed by one
against the other". There could be no
How does a person acquire personal knowledge criminal case by one spouse against the
of facts? other spouse because a criminal case is
- It is derived from his own perception. Thus, always by People of the Philippines vs.
we are back again to the qualifications of a Spouse, and not Spouse vs. Spouse. The
witness. since a witness can only testify to plaintiff in criminal case is always in the
those facts of which he has personal name of the People.
knowledge, he can only testify to those facts
which he acquired through his own Another disqualification: Disqualification by
perception. reason of mental incapacity (DELETED UNDER
THE NEW RULES)
Different disqualifications for certain persons to
testify on certain matters: 2) Disqualification by reason of privileged
1) Disqualification by reason of marriage communication
- Under the old rules: During the marriage,
neither the husband nor the wife may testify
for or against the other.
________________________________

Page 23 of 55
2a.) Disqualification by reason of Who is considered a physician/psychotherapist?

privileged communication between a *Memorize R130 S24 (C)
lawyer and a client
Any communication made in confidence to a
Under the new rules, this is not limited to a public officer during the tenure of his office is
communication between a lawyer and a client but also covered by the privileged communication
between a person who reasonably believed by the rule.
client to be licensed to practice law. So, even if the
person is not a lawyer, but he is reasonably believed The public officer cannot be examined/may not be
by a client to be a lawyer, he will be coved by this compelled to testify in any communication that he
disqualification received in official confidence during his tenure.
Exceptions under the new rules (instances when Under the old rules, it is "during the term of his
a lawyer may be examined as to communication office." Now, it's tenure. (note the difference between
made to him by his client or his advice given to tenure of office and term of office)
his client): *Memorize the exceptions
- If the reason why the client retained the
services of the lawyer was to help him JUDICIAL ADMISSION VS. EXTRAJUDICIAL
commit a crime or fraud, then the rule on ADMISSION
disqualification by reason of privileged
communication will not apply. The lawyer Judicial admission
may be examined as to communication he - An admission, oral or written, made by a
may have received from his client in the party in the course of the proceedings in the
course of, or with the view to, professional same case. It does not require proof.
employment.
Extrajudicial admission
2b.) Disqualification by reason of - An act, declaration, or omission of a party as
privileged communication between to a relevant fact; it is that outside or not
husband and wife done in the course of the proceedings of the
case.
Here, there's no need for one spouse to be a party to
the case. Also, there's no "affected spouse" here. Rules on admission:
The involved information is received in confidence by 1) A judicial admission does not require proof; it
one spouse from the other spouse during the need not be given in evidence.
marriage. 2) An extra judicial admission requires proof. It
must be given in evidence against the party
When does this rule apply? who made the admission. The person who
- Applies during and even after the marriage will give the extra judicial admission as
(unlike the rule on disqualification by reason evidence is the party who is benefited by the
of marriage which applies only during the admission. It should be given in evidence for
marriage) but the communication must be the court to consider it because the
received by the spouse from the other admission was not done in the course of the
spouse during the marriage. proceedings of the case and thus not yet
part of the records of the case.
Exceptions:
1) in civil case by one against the other OFFER OF COMPROMISE
2) in a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other, or the latter's direct Is an offer of compromise admissible against a
descendants/ascendant party who made the compromise?
- In civil cases, an offer of compromise by
There is also privileged communication between one party to the other is not an admission
a physician/psychotherapist and the patient; of any liability and not admissible as
minister/priest and a penitent/person who evidence against the offeror.
communicates to the priest/minister. - Illustration: In an action to recover 1million
from a defendant, plaintiff wanted defendant
________________________________

Page 24 of 55
to comply with his obligation. Defendant is and trial for murder will proceed against.
saying that he did not borrow money from Prosecution cannot use the plea of guilt to
the plaintiff but he is willing to give the the charge of homicide cannot be used
plaintiff 500thousand because he wants to against the accused.
buy peace and not want to be bothered by
litigation. If the plaintiff rejects the offer of OFFER OF COMPROMISE
compromise, he cannot present in evidence
the offer of compromise as admission of Civil Cases
defendant's liability even up to the amount of When one party makes an offer of compromise to
500thousand.
the other party, and the offer of compromise is
- If, instead of the above example, the
defendant said "I don't have 1million to pay rejected, so the trial will proceed:
you but I can pay you 800thousand", then  The party to whom the offer a compromise
this would be an admission of liability. was made, cannot give in evidence, the
offer of compromise made to him by the
In criminal cases an offer of compromised by an other party as an implied admission of
accused may be received in evidence by the
liability or
prosecution as implied admission of guilt by the
accused.  that offer of compromise may not be given in
evidence against the offeror.
What is usually done in criminal cases when the
accused wants to make an offer of compromise? The reason for the ruling class is to encourage the
- Accused will say that he is willing to pay parties in a civil action to try to settle the case
certain sum of money to settle the civil amicably.
aspect of the case. This way, the offer of
compromise cannot be given in evidence as
implied admission of guilt. An offer of compromise is a way of signifying to
the other party that the party making the offer of
In certain criminal cases, an offer of compromise compromise is willing to settle the case amicably
may not be received in evidence as implied is not admitting any liability, but is willing to give
admission of guilt: some concession to the other party, if only to
1) In quasi-offenses (those committed in buy peace.
reckless imprudence) - The offer of compromise should not be an
2) Estafa
admission of a fact. It should be an offer to
3) Violation of BP 22
4) Others (check the rules) give some concession, although not
admitting liability. For the purpose of ending
May a plea of guilt later withdrawn be given in the litigation or preventing a protracted
evidence as implied admission of guilt? litigation.
- No.
- Example: Accused was charged with murder Criminal Cases
and plead guilty. Later on, accused But in criminal cases an offer of compromise by
withdraws his plea of guilt and makes a plea
the accused may be given in evidence as an
of not guilty. The prosecution cannot use the
earlier plea of guilty as evidence of implied implied admission of liability:
admission of guilt.  The reason for this rule in criminal actions is
that as a general rule, criminal cases
May a plea of guilt to a lesser offense be given in cannot be compromised.
evidence as implied admission of guilt?  So in civil cases, compromise by the parties
- No.
is encouraged. But in criminal cases,
- Example: Accused was charged with
murder. He offers to plead guilty to homicide. compromise is prohibited. It's not allowed.
Private offended party rejects the offer to So when an accused makes an offer of
plea of guilty to homicide; thus, accused compromise, to the offended party, that offer
won't be allowed to plead guilty to homicide of compromise may be given in evidence
________________________________

Page 25 of 55
against him as an admission, as an implied act, declaration,or omission of another,

admission of guilt. except as hereinafter provided.
Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, there Res inter alios acta rule provides that the rights of a
are criminal cases, which may be compromised like party cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration or
cases committed through reckless imprudence. omission of another. It's logical. Earlier we discussed
These kinds of cases may be compromised. So an extrajudicial admission.
offer of compromise by the accused in a case for
reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property, What is an extrajudicial admission?
homicide, physical injuries. This offer of compromise - Extrajudicial admission are those admission
is not admissible as an implied admission of guilt. made outside the proceedings of the same
case.
Plea of guilty
- When the accused enters a plea of guilty, An extrajudicial admission is an act, declaration or
and later withdraws the plea of guilty and omission of a party, which may be given in evidence
changes it to a plea of not guilty, the against him. It’s corollary to the res inter alios acta
prosecution cannot give in evidence, the rule, the act, declaration or omission of a person/of a
plea of guilty that was later withdrawn as an party may be given in evidence against him. But the
implied admission of guilt. act, declaration or omission of another may not
prejudice the rights of another. The way that the res
The offer of an accused to enter a plea of guilty inter alios acta rule this is stated does not sound like
to a lesser offense is allowed as part of the plea a rule on evidence. It sounds like a substantive rule
bargaining. because the rule says the rights of a party cannot be
- An accused offering to enter a plea of guilty prejudiced by the act, declaration or omission of
to a lesser offense meaning an offense another. It does not sound like a rule on evidence.
lesser than the offense charged. When that
is rejected by the private offended party or Because a rule on evidence provides for either the
the public prosecutor, that offer to enter a admissibility or non-admissibility of evidence or it
plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be provides for either the probative value of evidence or
given in evidence against the accused as an the non-probative value of evidence, but this rule on
implied admission of guilt. the res inter alios acta rule does not sound like a rule
- An offer to pay or the payment of expenses on evidence.
or medical expenses incurred because of an
injury suffered by a person is not an The act, declaration or omission of a party may be
admission of any liability and may not be given in evidence against him. So what a person
given in evidence against the party who does or says can prejudice his rights because what a
made the offer to pay or has in fact paid person says or does may be given in evidence
medical expenses hospital or other against him. That's how person's declaration,
expenses occasioned by an injury. omission may prejudice him/ may prejudice his rights
because this act, declaration or omission of a person
Res Inter Alios Acta Rule may be given in evidence against him.
What is the res inter alios acta rule? How may the act, declaration or omission of a
- The res inter alios acta rule is found under party may prejudice the rights of another? (as a
Section 29 of rule 130 rule on evidence)
- Res inter alios acta rule (as a rule on
Section 29. Admission by third party. – The evidence)
rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
________________________________

Page 26 of 55
- The act, declaration or omission of a person makes a declaration, it is as if that

may not be given in evidence against declaration was also made by B.
another.
So that's why the declaration of a partner may be
While the act, declaration or omission of a person given in evidence against a co-partner.
may be given in evidence against him. The act,
declaration or omission of a person may not be given What about a principal and his agent?
in evidence against another person. - They also have the same fiduciary
relationship. So that the agent who makes a
Exceptions to the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule: declaration, an act or omission. As long as
(We will discuss at least one exception so we know it's as long as such is within the scope of his
exactly what we are talking about.) authority and during the existence of the
agency then such admission or declaration
Admission by a co-partner or agent may be given evidence against the principal.
- The act, declaration of a partner may be
given in evidence against a co-partner. So Against co-conspirators
that will be an exception to the res inter alios The fiduciary relationship between a principal and his
acta rule. The first exception is that the act or agent is the same as the fiduciary relationship
declaration of one partner may be given in among co-conspirators among conspirators for
evidence it may be given in evidence against purposes of the commission of a crime.
a co-partner. Okay, so let's illustrate that.
Why is the relationship among conspirators the
So let's say there is a partnership, ABC partnership. same as in the case of partners and between
It's a partnership among, Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C. So, principal and agent? What is there in conspiracy
they formed a partnership called ABC partnership. that creates that kind of relationship among
So they are now partners. conspirators? When is there a conspiracy?
- There is conspiracy when two or more
If Partner A makes a declaration, under the res inter persons come to an agreement with the
alios acta rule, that declaration of A may not be given commission of a crime and decide to commit
in evidence against B and C. If you apply the res it. You can see there is a partnership among
inter alios acta rule, if there is a declaration of A may them. The only difference is that the
not be given in evidence against either Partner B, or partnership is to commit a crime. That's why
Partner C. But we are discussing the exception the act, declaration of the conspirator may
under the exception the act or declaration shown also be given in evidence against his co-
partner a may be given in evidence against Partner conspirator because of that relationship.
B, or Partner C. They form that relationship only among
criminals. So that when one conspirator
Why is that an exception? Why is it that when makes a declaration regarding the
one partner makes a declaration, that declaration conspiracy or in furtherance of the
of one partner may be given in evidence against conspiracy during the existence of the
his co-partner? Why is that an exception to the conspiracy, that declaration of one
res inter alios acta rule? What kind of a conspirator may be given in evidence
relationship is there among the partners in a against his co-conspirator.
partnership?
- Because of the fiduciary relationship How will be declaration of a partner be given in
between or among partners, it is as if the act evidence against his co-partner? who will
of one, the declaration of one is also the testify?
declaration of the other so that when partner - Any person who heard the declaration
made by Partner A, may now testify in the
________________________________

Page 27 of 55
pending case where Partner B is a party, Otherwise, there's no guilt of the offense of the
and that witness who heard the declaration offense charged to speak of. So based on the way
of partner A may now testify on the the rule is created, there is already a pending
declaration of partner A. criminal action against the accused there is an
- It's not Partner A who will testify against offense charged against him. And he accepts or
Partner B not because if that is the case, we admits guilt or declines charges against him. But the
are not discussing the exception to the res rule says that acknowledgement of guilt/that
inter alios acta rule, Partner A will not be confession may be given in evidence against him.
testifying on his own declaration, he will just
testify based on his personal knowledge What does this imply? Is this admission
against Partner B. acknowledgement of guilt made by the accused
- It's somebody else/any person who heard in the course of the proceedings of the criminal
the declaration of Partner A who will now action, or outside the court, outside the
testify. And the declaration of Partner A may proceedings?
be given in evidence against Partner B, who - Outside the proceedings
is a party in a pending case.
Because if it was made - the acknowledge of guilt
That is also true in the case of the declaration of an made by the accused, in the course of the
agent - regarding the agency made during the proceedings of the criminal action against him, then
existence of the agency made within the scope of the there's no need to give it in evidence, it's a judicial
authority of the agent. It's not the agent who will admission. It's like our plea of guilty, it's like the
testify against the principal in a pending case where accused entering a plea of guilty because he
the principal is a party. Somebody who heard the acknowledges guilt of the offense charged.
declaration of the agent will now testify as to what as
to the declaration that he heard. Who will testify on the confession made by the
accused? (Made outside the proceedings of the
Confession case)
- It's the person who heard the confession
What is a confession? which will be presented by the prosecution or
- Section 34. Confession. – The declaration of any person who heard the accused
an accused acknowledging his or her guilt of acknowledge his guilt of the offense charged
the offense charged, or of any offense may now testify for the prosecution on the
necessarily included therein, may be given in acknowledgement of guilt that he heard from
evidence against him or her or her the accused.
background.
So a witness, another person, will testify that he is
Who is making the acknowledgement of guilt? the friend of the accused, and one time while they
- The accused. were together, the accused told him, “you know my
friend, I'm the accused in a criminal action, where I'm
But what is the rule on confession? So a charged with murder, you know my friend, I really
confession is made by the accused, what is the committed the crime of murder”. And so, that friend -
rule? Is it admissible in evidence that may be to whom the acknowledgement was made, may now
given in evidence against him? testify for the prosecution regarding what the
- A confession and acknowledgement of guilt accused told him.
made by accused may be given in evidence
against him. How would you distinguish a confession and an
admission of a fact?
Remember: by this rule, that there is already a
pending criminal action against the accused. Okay, let's make an illustration.
________________________________

Page 28 of 55
Old rule: It would be a hearsay when with a

Suppose the accused is charged with homicide. And statement is beyond his personal knowledge.
the accused told a friend. “You know my friend. I'm
charged with homicide in a pending case. I admit *Evidence under the old rules is different from this
that I killed the victim. I admit that I killed the victim.” rule*
Is that a confession? A confession is an Hearsay is a statement other than the one made by
acknowledgement of guilt of the offense charged. the declarant while testifying. Anything that a witness
The offense charged is homicide. The accused told says during the course of his testimony could not be
his friend, outside the court, that he admits killing the hearsay evidence. Because hearsay is a statement
victim. Would you consider that a confession, or just other than one made by the declarant while testifying
an admission of a fact? at a trial or hearing. But based on this, we can
conclude that anything that a witness says during his
If the accused admits that he killed the victim, that is testimony when testifying at a trial is not hearsay.
not necessarily an acknowledgement of guilt for the Any statement made by the witness while testifying
offense charged. The act of killing may not be in court when he could be cross examined, would not
homicide, if one person kills another in self-defense, be objected to as hearsay.
there is no homicide. So, an admission that the
accused killed the victim is not an So let's eliminate first what is not hearsay. Any
acknowledgment of guilt, of the offense of testimony any statement made by a witness while he
homicide. It's just an admission of a fact. is testifying could not be hearsay, because he is
testifying at the trial. Later on, he will be cross
The fact of killing the victim - is not an examined.
acknowledgement of guilt. So you have to make the
distinction between a simple admission of a fact and Because he's testifying in court therefore anything,
a confession, which is an acknowledgement of guilt he says could not be hearsay it's a declaration other
of the offense charged. Admitting that he killed the than what was made while the witness is testifying in
victim is not the same as admitting that he is guilty of court. It could only refer to any declaration made by
homicide by killing the victim. the witness while not testifying in court.
Hearsay So, for example, I am the witness. And then I am

making declarations on a certain matter, everything
What is hearsay? When is a statement of a that I say while I am testifying on the witness stand is
witness considered hearsay? not a hearsay statement. But if you are not testifying,
- Section 37. Hearsay. – Hearsay is a and you made a declaration that would be hearsay, if
statement other than one made by the your declaration, while not testifying is offered in
declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, evidence as proof of the truth of the facts is stated in
offered to prove the truth of the facts those declaration that you made while you were not
asserted therein. testifying.
Hearsay is a statement other than one that is made Who will be testifying on your declaration for
by the declarant will testifying in court. them to be hearsay?
- The person who heard the declaration.
Let's illustrate.
Okay, he will be a witness, that person who heard
A witness is testifying in court. So as far as that your declaration outside the court while you were not
witness is concerned, what would be hearsay testifying, will testify on your declaration. And if that
statement? person testifies, he is now a witness, who will testify
on what you said. That declaration that you made
________________________________

Page 29 of 55
while outside the court and if testified to by another of necessity. Why is there a necessity to
person, then that would now be hearsay. admit hearsay evidence?
What is important to remember: Anything that a Because the person who has personal knowledge of
witness will testify on, except if what he is testifying the facts stated in the declaration is already dead, or
on is the declaration of another person, then that is unable to testify. That's why the declaration of that
would be hearsay, but anything else would not be person who is already dead or is unable to testify
objected to as hearsay. may now be testified on by a witness. Of course, that
will be hearsay as a rule, but they are admissible as
There are exceptions. When is a statement not exceptions for being trustworthy. And because there
hearsay? is necessity to have the hearsay evidence anyway
- We spell it there under the second it's trustworthy. Because the declarant, who made
paragraph of Section 37: A statement is not the declaration has personal knowledge of the facts
hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or stated in his declaration is already dead or is unable
hearing and is subject to cross-examination to testify.
concerning the statement, and the statement
is (a) inconsistent with the declarant’s First exception:
testimony, and was given under oath subject SECTION 38. Dying declaration. – The declaration of
to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or a dying person, made under the consciousness of an
other proceeding, or in a deposition; (b) impending death, may be received in any case
consistent with the declarant’s testimony and wherein his or her death is the subject of inquiry, as
is offered to rebut an express or implied evidence of the cause and surrounding
charge against the declarant of recent circumstances of such death.
fabrication or improper influence or motive;
or (c) one of identification of a person made So, the declaration of a dying person, being under
after perceiving him or her. the consciousness of an impending death may be
given in evidence in any case where in his death is
General Rule: Hearsay evidence is inadmissible the subject of inquiry and as evidence of the cause
XPN: Hearsay evidence is admissible as an and surrounding circumstances of his death
exception
Let's illustrate that.
Two reasons:
1) Because although hearsay in character, in Suppose while Mr. A is walking along the road; he
declaration is considered trustworthy. saw somebody lying on the ground. And when he
Although the declaration is hearsay, but it is approached the person lying on the ground with
considered trustworthy for certain special blood, oozing from several parts of his body, the
reasons. person was lying on the ground told Mr. A. So the
person lying on the ground, with blood all over his
It is considered very trustworthy if the body told Mr. A, “I'm Mr. B. I was stabbed 10 times
witness can testify on the declaration made by Mr. C. Although I’m stabbed 10 times by Mr. C.
by another accurately. He can quote the I'm a very strong person. I know. I'm sure I will
declaration of another person accurately, survive. I'm sure it will survive.” But after telling Mr. A
while he is testifying in court, then that that he will survive Mr. B died.
declaration made by another person is
considered very trustworthy. So in the prosecution of Mr. C, let us say murder.
Question is, may Mr. A, the passerby, testify in the
2) Another reason why hearsay evidence is prosecution of Mr. C. for the crime of murder. May
admissible under this exception is because Mr. A, the passerby testify on what Mr. B told him
before he died? Of course, the declaration made by
________________________________

Page 30 of 55
Mr. B if testified on by Mr. A, that would be hearsay. Is the dying declaration made by B before he died
That would be an example of hearsay evidence being given in evidence as evidence of the cause
because the declaration of B to be testified on by the and surrounding circumstances of the death? Yes.
declaration on Mr. A, will be offered as proof of the So, those requisites are satisfied, but the first
facts stated in the declaration - that it was Mr. C who requisite is not satisfied. So, declaration made by B
stabbed in 10 times. So that is hearsay evidence. to A, is testified to by A, is not admissible as a dying
Okay. Now, my question is, is the testimony of Mr. A, declaration because that declaration was made by B
as to what Mr. B told him before Mr. B died is not in the consciousness of an impending death.
admissible in evidence as a dying declaration? In That is very important, that is what makes a dying
that case for the prosecution of Mr. C for murder, is declaration very trustworthy, because it is made by
the testimony of Mr. A as to what Mr. B told him the person under the consciousness of an impending
before Mr. B died admissible as a dying declaration death. The reason why a dying declaration is
in the case for murder against Mr. C? considered very trustworthy.
Is the testimony on what B said admissible? So, if the dying declaration can be testified on by a
- As a dying declaration, it will it will not be witness accurately, meaning, the witness can
admissible because the declaration was accurately quote the dying declaration, that
made not under the consciousness of declaration is very trustworthy because it was made
impending death because of facts you said by the dying person while under the consciousness
that he is certain that he will survive. That he of impending death. They believe, those who
is a strong person; he will not die. formulated this rule on dying declaration, they
believe that a person who is about to die will not tell
So, let's first determine are the requisites for the a lie regarding as to who inflicted on him the injuries
admissibility of a dying declaration. of which he is about to die. Okay, that's why the
declaration of a dying person is considered very
1) We said earlier that the declaration must be trustworthy. It is Mr. B, who has personal knowledge
made by the dying person under the of who stabbed him. Mr. A has no knowledge. Mr. B
consciousness of an impending death. So himself is the one who has personal knowledge as to
the declaration must be made by a dying who is stabbed hm. Now, Mr. B is already dead, he
person under the consciousness of an can no longer testify. So, there is now necessity to
impending death. That's the first requisite. permit hearsay evidence. So, those two elements
Was that requisite satisfied? Was the are satisfied.
declaration made by under the
consciousness of an impending death not First, dying declaration is considered very
satisfied, okay. trustworthy, because it is made by a person who is
2) The second requisite is that the declaration conscious that he is about to die. He is about to meet
the dying declaration is admissible in any his creator. And, there is necessity to admit hearsay
case, where the death of the declarant is the evidence, because the person who has personal
subject of inquiry, what is the subject of knowledge of the facts contained in the declaration is
inquiry in that prosecution for murder against already dead, he can no longer testify.
C what is the subject of the inquiry?
Is the declaration made by B to A after being
The death of the declarant is the subject of inquiry, stabbed 10 times, is that admissible under any other
so that the requisite is satisfied. Because the dying rule? It's not admissible as a dying declaration. But is
declaration is being given in evidence in the it admissible under any other rule?
prosecution against C for murder where the subject
of inquiry is the death of the declarant, Mr. B. It is admissible as part of res gestae because there's
no need for the declaration to be made to be made
under the consciousness of an impending death,
________________________________

Page 31 of 55
because under the law on res gestae, it is enough - You cannot use as a reason that the
that the statement was made by a person while the declarant did not die. You cite the requisite
startling occurrence is taking place. which is not satisfied and that the third
Now, what is the startling occurrences here? The requisite is also not satisfied. You know
stabbing incident. What more can more startling by why? Because the dying declaration may be
being stabbed 10 times. given in evidence only as evidence of the
cause and surrounding circumstances of the
So, that declaration made by B to Mr. A may be death of the declaration. There is no death of
admitted as part of the res gestae because then that the declarant.
declaration made by B was made while a startling or
immediately after a startling occurrence happened. (Question about Riguera’s book – all the requisites
So that that declaration while not admissible, as a are in Sec.38. There is no need to add another
dying declaration will be admitted as part of the res requisite that the declarant should be dead.)
gestae.
This rule on dying declaration as an exception to the
Now let's modify the facts a little. hearsay rule applies to the other exceptions. The
person who made the declaration and who has
Suppose after being stabbed 10 times, Mr. B told Mr. personal knowledge of the facts contained in the
A that it was Mr. C who stabbed him 10 times. He declaration is either dead or unable to testify. So his
wants to tell Mr. A that it was Mr. C who stabbed declaration will be testified on by another person,
him. But Mr. A brought Mr. B to the hospital and another witness, not the person who made the
fortunately Mr. B survived. Mr. B survived. Although declaration because he because he's either dead
he told Mr. A that he was about to die, he was were able to testify. Now, let's briefly discuss this
stabbed 10 times. He can feel that he was about to another exception.
die. But he was brought to the hospital and he
survived. Act or declaration about pedigree
Declaration about pedigree, So, what may be given
Now in the prosecution of C for murder, is the in evidence?
declaration made by Mr. B to Mr. A be admitted as a
dying declaration? No. Which of the requisites is not SECTION 41. Act or declaration about pedigree. -
present? The act or declaration of a person deceased or
unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of
(There is no requisite that the declarant should be another person related to him or her by birth,
dead. There is no requisite that the declarant should adoption, or marriage, or, in the absence thereof,
die.) with whose family he or she was so intimately
associated as to be likely to have accurate
In what case may a dying declaration be given in information concerning his or her pedigree, may be
evidence? A dying declaration may be in given as received in evidence where it occurred before the
evidence wherein the death of the declarant is the controversy, and the relationship between the two
subject of inquiry. persons is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. The word "pedigree" includes
What is the inquiry? Frustrated murder. There’s no relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death,
death to speak of. That declaration made by B to A is the dates when and the places where these facts
not admissible as a dying declaration in the occurred, and the names of the relatives. It
prosecution for frustrated murder against C. embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree.
So you have to mention the requisite that was
not satisfied. So it's a declaration of a person decease or unable
to testify regarding the pedigree of another person
________________________________

Page 32 of 55
which is related to him by birth or marriage or by Are A and C related? Are they related by birth or
consanguinity or affinity. marriage?
- Yes, they are related by birth. They are first
So let us say, Mr. A, has a friend, Mr. B. cousins. That requisite is satisfied.
Mr. A told Mister B: “Mr. B,you know my cousin, Mr.
C? He is the illegitimate child of Mr. D. Then later on It is also required that the declaration should be
Mr. A died. Suppose later on Mr. C file a paternity made before the controversy or before the filing of
suit against Mr. D. (Mr. C, filed a paternity suit the paternity suit. But, that is not satisfied because a
against yesterday) is already A is dead when the paternity suit was filed
by C against D.
The question now is can Mr. B, testify on what Mr. A
told him while Mr. A was still alive; you know that Mr. It is also required that the relationship between the
C is the illegitimate child of Mr. D. Now the defendant declarant, A, and, C, the person whose pedigree is in
in that paternity suit filed by Mr. C, question should be shown by evidence other than
the declaration of A. Okay, so those are the
Is the declaration of Mr. A regarding the pedigree of requisites.
Mr. C (who is related to him now, Mr. C is related to
Mr. A by birth). Mr. C is the first cousin of Mr. A, the Why is the declaration of A be testified on B,
declarant. Is the declaration okay regarding the which is, as you said, hearsay evidence
pedigree of Mr. C admissible in evidence, Mr. A is considered trustworthy? So that even if it is
already dead. Is the testimony of B, as to what A told hearsay because it is B who will testify on the
him admissible in evidence in the paternity suit filed declaration as defined under the amended rules,
by Mr. C against Mr. D? why is it considered trustworthy?
- When A made the declaration to B regarding
Is the declaration of A made to B admissible in the pedigree of C, his first cousint, there was
evidence in the paternity suit filed by C against no pending paternity suit yet. So there is no
D? May B testify based on what A told him motive for A, to fabricate anything with
regarding the pedigree of C? regards to the relationship of C and D.
- Yes.
At the time when there is no controversy yet
If B testifies on the declaration of A, would that regarding that pedigree, there is no reason for a
be hearsay evidence? person to falsify any statement regarding the
- Yes, because A is already dead and he can pedigree of his relative considering that there is no
no longer testify in court. pending case yet where the pedigree is in question.
So when one person talks about the pedigree of his
In the declaration of A to B regarding the relative, you can expect that he will be accurate in
pedigree of C, what will be included in the world his declaration that he will not falsify it.
that degree?
- It will include the relationship. Being the There is no reason for a person to say something
illegitimate child of D would be pedigree. false regarding the pedigree of his relative. Okay, so
that's why it's called any declaration regarding the
What A told B would be regarding the pedigree of pedigree of a relative is considered trustworthy.
C, it is also required that the declarant
declaration he, A, should be related to the person Why is there a necessity to admit? You have
whose pedigree is in question in that paternity seen evidence which is the declaration of A to be
suit. Who is the person whose pedigrees is in testified on by B, why is there a necessity to
question? admit hearsay evidence?
- C. - No other available evidence to establish the
link of the relationship. Because there is no
________________________________

Page 33 of 55
other person who has personal knowledge - By showing to the court this witness has
that C is the illegitimate son of D. special knowledge, experience training, or
education regarding the matter that he will
Who is that person? testify on. That is called the process of
- A because he had the personal knowledge showing the expert witness as that special
but since he is already dead, so B may knowledge, skill, training, or education is
testify. It will be considered trustworthy and called qualifying the witness.
there is now necessity to admit using
evidence because the person who has Before a proponent may present an expert witness
personal knowledge of the facts stated in the or before a witness may be allowed to testify on his
declaration is already dead. So those two opinion as an expert witness, he should first be
exceptions illustrate all the other exceptions qualified. So, the first questions that the proponent
to the hearsay rule. should ask his witness when he intends to present
as an expert witness should be to show that this
May a witness testify on his opinion? witness being presented is one who has acquired
- As a general rule, no. It is inadmissible. special knowledge, skill, training, experience, or
education on the matter that he is about to testify.
When asked, always answer with the general rule Okay, that is qualifying the witness. After the witness
and not with the exceptions. So, a witness cannot is qualified, and the court is satisfied, that indeed this
testify on his opinion about the fact in issue. He can witness is an expert witness, then that expert witness
only testify based on facts of his personal knowledge will now may now testify on his opinion.
that is which are derived from his own perception.
The opinion of a witness is not derived from his Actually, an expert witness usually will testify on his
perception. opinion, because usually the expert witness does not
have personal knowledge of the facts involved in a
The rule says a witness may testify only on facts of pending case. So, he will mostly testify on his
his personal knowledge with that his which are opinion. That is how an expert witness testifies. On
derived from his own perception. An opinion is not his opinion, he will be giving his opinion.
derived from the perception of the witness. So, a
witness cannot testify on his opinion. Let us say a medico-legal doctor who conducted the
autopsy will be asked what is the cause of the death
Are there exceptions to that general rule? of the victim who was found floating on the river. So,
- Yes. The exceptions to the general rule or let us say the crime charged is murder. The issue
the opinions of an expert witness and an now is whether the victim died of drowning or was he
ordinary witness. dead already when he was thrown to the river.
Who is considered an expert witness? Now, the doctor who conducted the autopsy, now, is
- An expert witness under Section 52 is having being asked now, assuming that he has already
this processing special knowledge, skill been qualified. What is, in your opinion, the cause of
experience, training or education which he or death? Was the victim alive when he was thrown to
she is known to possess regarding the the river or was he already dead?
matter he or she is testifying on.
What will the doctor say who was presented as
That must be shown in court. The proponent the an expert witness?
party who is presenting an expert witness must first - He will say, “In my opinion, because I found
show to the court that his witness is an expert bubbles in the lungs of the victim when I
witness. conducted the autopsy, the victim was still
alive when he was thrown to the river. Why
How would be the proponent do that? is that my opinion? Because he was still
________________________________

Page 34 of 55
breathing when he was thrown to the river - It must be shown first that that witness has
that explains the presence of bubbles in the sufficient familiarity with the handwriting of
lungs of the victim.” the person whose handwriting is in question.
- That is how an expert witness testify on his
opinion. But, it should be qualified first, so What about a witness to testify on his opinion
that he may be allowed to testify on his regarding the mental sanity of a person?
opinion. - It must be shown that the ordinary witness
should sufficiently be acquainted with the
What is the second exception? person whose sanity is in question.
- The opinion of an ordinary witness may be
admitted in evidence. What is referred to as the proper basis that that must
be given before an ordinary witness may testify on
When may the opinion of an ordinary witness be his opinion.
admitted in evidence as an exception to the rule
on opinion as evidence? Take note: The witness will testify on his opinion, not
- As an exception to the general rule, the on a fact of his personal knowledge, but those
opinion of an ordinary witness may be requirements must be satisfied first. Proper basis
admitted under three (3) circumstances: must be given.
1) Identity of the person
2) Handwriting
3) Mental sanity of the person Is evidence regarding the character of a person
admissible?
What is that proper basis that must be given - No. The general rule is that evidence of a
before the opinion of an ordinary witness may be person's character is not admissible.
received in evidence?
- The ordinary witness must adequate You cannot present evidence to prove the character
knowledge about the identity of the person of a person because as a rule, evidence on
that must be shown first, that is what is character
referred to as the proper basis that must be is not admissible.
given.
What are the exceptions to this rule?
Suppose the proponent once his witness will - In a criminal action, one of the exceptions is
testify on his opinion regarding a handwriting. the accused may prove his good moral
What proper basis must be given? character which is pertinent to the moral trait
- It must be shown that the ordinary witness is involved in the offense charged.
sufficiently familiar with the handwriting of
the person whose handwriting is in question. For example, the accused is charged with estafa,
what is the good moral character pertinent to the
With regards to identity of a person or mental moral trait involved in estafa?
sanity of a person but with regards to - Honesty. The accused may prove that he is
handwriting, there is no mention of a person in known to be an honest person.
handwriting of a person. Why is that?
- It is understood that a handwriting is for a May the accused now present evidence to prove
person considerably. that he is an honest person and may disprove
that he committed estafa?
What is the proper basis that must be given if the - Yes. Why would the accused present
witness will testify on his opinion regarding a evidence to prove that he is honest, if it will
handwriting? not in any way disprove that he committed
estafa? That is why he will present evidence
________________________________

Page 35 of 55
of his good moral character which is honesty prosecution which presents evidence first,
to show us that it is very unlikely that he followed by the accused.
committed the offense of a estafa.
What is burden of evidence?
What about the prosecution? May the - It is the duty of a party to present evidence
prosecution, through the bad moral character of on the facts and issue necessary to establish
the accused which is pertinent to the moral trait his claims or in the defense by the amount of
involved in the offense charged, prove the bad the evidence required by law or the rules.
moral character of the accused in the offense
charged is estafa? What is the amount of evidence required by law?
- No. The prosecution may not prove the bad - If it is in a civil action, it is preponderance of
moral character of the accused unless on evidence.
rebuttal.
Who is the party required to produce
What do you mean by “unless in rebuttal”? preponderance of evidence?
- It is only when the accused during his turn to - The party who has the burden of proof must
present evidence presented evidence of his produce preponderance of evidence. So you
good moral character that later on the have to determine which party has the
prosecution may present evidence to prove burden of proof, then that party who has the
the bad moral character of the accuse. So if burden of proof is required to produce
the accused did not present evidence of his preponderance of evidence.
good moral character, the prosecution
cannot present evidence of the bad moral It is not always the plaintiff in a civil case, who has
character of the accused, because that the burden of proof, it may be the defendant because
would not be in rebuttal. There is nothing to later on when we discuss who has the burden of
rebut. proof, then we know that it could be the plaintiff or
the defendant with regard to specific factual issues. It
If the accused did not present evidence of his good depends on what factual issue are we talking about.
moral character, then there is nothing to rebut. The
prosecution cannot present evidence of the bad As to this factual issue, who is the party who has
moral character of the accused. So during the initial the burden of proof?
presentation of prosecution evidence, because it is - It depends but that will be the subject of our
the prosecution which presents evidence first in a discussion later.
criminal action. So during that initial presentation of
evidence, the prosecution cannot present evidence What about in a criminal action?
to prove the bad moral character of the accused. - The amount of evidence required by law is
proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Why can the prosecution during its initial
presentation of evidence present evidence of the Which party in a criminal action is required to
bad moral character of the accused? produce proof beyond reasonable doubt?
- The accused has not yet shown us not yet - The prosecution.
presented evidence showing his or her good
moral character. The prosecution can only Is the accused required to prove his innocence
present evidence of the accused’s bad moral beyond reasonable doubt?
character in rebuttal. During the initial - No. The accused is not required to produce
presentation of prosecution evidence, there any amount of evidence because if the
is nothing to rebut yet because the accused prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the
has not presented any evidence yet. It is the accused beyond reasonable doubt, even if
the accused did not present any evidence,
________________________________

Page 36 of 55
no amount of evidence, he deserves to be What is the amount of evidence required

acquitted. Because to warrant the conviction information against the respondent?
of the accused, the prosecutor must prove - It is the probable cause.
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- If the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of What is probable cause?
the abuse beyond reasonable doubt, then - That amount of evidence which is sufficient
even if the accused did not present any to engender a well-founded belief that a
amount or did not produce any amount of crime was committed and that the
evidence, then he deserves to be acquitted. respondent is probably guilty thereof and
The burden is always on the prosecution to should be held for trial.
prove the guilt of the accused to be
unreasonable. So take note of that. What other instance is probable cause required?
- For the issuance of a warrant of arrest. After
It is always the prosecution who is required to the information is filed, the judge has to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond determine probable cause to determine
reasonable doubt Why? whether to issue a warrant to arrest or to
- Because the accused has that constitutional dismiss the criminal case.
right.
There is another instance when probable cause
Why is it that it is not necessary for the accused is required for the issuance of what?
to produce any amount of evidence as long as - For the issuance of a search warrant.
the prosecution fails to prove this give me a
reasonable now, he deserves to be acquitted That is what is referred to by the amount of evidence
without presenting any evidence? required by law which depends on the action in
- Because of the presumption of innocence. which it is required.
The constitutional rights of the accused, to
be presumed innocent, until otherwise What is the test in determining which party has
unless he is guilt is proved beyond the burden of proof?
reasonable doubt. - Factual Issue.
Without the prosecution, proving his guilt beyond How do you state a factual issue?
reasonable doubt, that presumption of innocence, in - Let me explain how a factual issue arises in
favor of the accused will stand or will remain. What a case. Suppose in his complaint, the
will destroy it the presumption is only proof of guilt of plaintiff alleges that Fact A exists. But in his
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Anything answer, the defendant says, is denying the
less than that will not defeat the presumption of Fact A exists. So there is a proper denial.
innocence of the abuse. There is an assertion by the plaintiff in his
complaint, that Fact A exists, there is a
What about in an administrative case? proper denial in this answer by the defendant
- It is substantial evidence. that Fact A does not exist.
- The factual issue should be stated as
What is substantial evidence? “Whether or not whether or not Fact A
- It is the amount of relevant evidence which a exists.”
reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion. Which of the parties now asserts the affirmative
of the issue?
What is the amount of evidence required to - It is the plaintiff who is asserting the
justify the filing of an information against the affirmative of the issue that Fact A exists
accused after the preliminary investigation? because the issue is whether or not Fact A
________________________________

Page 37 of 55
exists. So the plaintiff is asserting the plaintiff will deny that the defendant has already
affirmative of issue and the defendant is paid this obligation that that allegation by the
asserting the negative of the issue. defendant that he has already paid, his obligation
is being denied by the plaintiff?
Based on the test that you gave, you said, the - Under the under the amended rules, all new
party who is asserting the affirmative of the issue matters alleged in the in the answer are
has the burden of proof. So which party now has deemed denied without the plaintiff having to
the burden of proof with regard to that particular file a reply. Since the allegation by the
factual issue? defendant that he has already paid, his
- A has the burden of proof. obligation is being denied by the plaintiff.
The factual is now whether or not the
Suppose in his complaint, the plaintiff alleges defendant has already paid his obligation to
that the defendant obtained a loan from him the the plaintiff.
amount of P1M payable on a certain date, and
when the date due came, he made several Who is asserting of that issue of whether or not
demands upon the defendant, and the defendant the defendant has already paid his obligation to
failed to pay his obligation. That is the allegation the plaintiff?
in the complaint. In his Answer, the defendant - It is not now the defendant who has the
denied that he obtained any loans from the burden of proof.
plaintiff. What would be the factual issue now? - However, it is not always the plaintiff if the
How would you state the factual issue? defendant asserts a new matter in his
- Whether or not the defendant obtained a answer and is deemed denied by the
loan from the plaintiff. plaintiff, even if no reply is filed, therefore, it
will be the defendant who will have the
Who is asserting the affirmative of the issue? burden of proof.
- The plaintiff, the party who asserts the
affirmative of the issue has the burden of Based on the examples that we have discussed,
proof. what determines which party has the burden of
proof?
Let us say, the same allegation in the complaint. - It is the party who asserts the affirmative of
But in his answer, the defendant alleged that the issue.
while it is true, that he obtained the loan from the
plaintiff in that amount alleged in the complaint, Where do you determine which part has
P1M, he has already paid his obligation to the asserted?
plaintiff. What is now the factual issue? - In the allegation asserted by the party. Once
- Whether or not the defendant paid the loan the burden of proof is determined by the
to the plaintiff. allegations in the pleadings of the parties,
that remains in that party. If the allegations in
No longer whether or the defendant obtained a the pleadings of the party as determined,
loan from the plaintiff? Why is that not an issue? then that party has the burden of proof
- It was already affirmed when the defendant because the question as to which party has
said that he already paid the loan. The the burden of proof is determined by the
defendant has admitted that he obtained a allegations in their respective pleadings.
loan so that it cannot be a factual issue.
What is the factual issue when defendant says, RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF
while it is good that he obtained a loan in the EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS
amount of P1M, he has already paid the
obligation even without filing a reply, where the What is burden of evidence?
________________________________

Page 38 of 55
- It is the duty of a party to present to defeat or Let's say illustrate a situation where it's the
overcome the prima facie evidence defendant who is asserting the affirmative of the
presented by the party who has the burden issue. Now, let's say in his complaint, the
of proof. complaint the plaintiff alleged that the defendant
obtained a loan from him in the amount of 1
What is now the duty of the adverse party? million pesos and the defendant, despite
- To reduce evidence sufficient to defeat the repeated demands failed to pay his obligation. In
prima evidence produced by the party who his in his answer, the defendant alleged that he
has the burden of proof. never obtained a loan from the plaintiff. What is
now the factual issue that arises from that
What determines which party has the burden of allegation, assertion of the plaintiff and the denial
evidence? of the defendant? What is the factual issue?
- It would depend on the development in the - Whether or not the defendant obtained a
case. When the party who has the burden of loan from the plaintiff.
proof has produced prima facie evidence to
prove the fact that he is asserting, then the Now, what is the affirmative of the issue?
adverse party would now have the burden of - The defendant obtained a loan from the
evidence. plaintiff
- The burden of proof will remain with the
party as fixed by the pleadings of the parties, What's the negative of the issue?
but the evidence may shift from one party to - The defendant did not obtain the loan from
another depending on the exigencies of the the plaintiff
trial of the case.
Who is asserting the affirmative of the issue?
What is the test in determining which party has - The plaintiff. With regard to that particular
the burden of proof? issue, it is the plaintiff who has the burden of
proof.
- The party who asserts the affirmative of the
issue has the burden of proof. Suppose the plaintiff made the same allegation in
his complaint that the defendant obtained a loan
Let's say the issue is whether fact A exists now. from him. In his answer, the defendant alleged
That's a factual issue. Now. What is the that while it is true that he obtained the loan from
affirmative of the issue, whether or not fact A the plaintiff, he already paid his obligation. What
exist? is now the factual issue that arises from those
- The affirmative is that fact A exists allegations?
- Whether or not the defendant has paid his
What's the negative of the issue? obligation of to the plaintiff.
- The issue is fact A does not exist.
What about whether or not the defendant has
Why is it important to determine which party has obtained a loan from the plaintiff? Would that be
the burden of proof? an issue based on those allegations? Why is that
- It's not always the plaintiff who has the not an issue?
burden of proof. The party who asserts the - No, because there is an express admission
affirmative of the issue as the burden of that he obtained a loan. Since there is an
proof, he may be the plaintiffs or he may be admission of the fact, there is no issue with
the defendant, whoever has the affirmative regards to the existence of the obligation, the
of the issue has the burden of proof. issue is with regard to the payment.
What is the affirmative or the issue?

________________________________

Page 39 of 55
- The defendant has already made the Once the party who has the burden of proof has
payment to the obligation to the plaintiff. already produced prima facie evidence to prove the
fact that he is asserting, which is of course the
What's the negative of the issue? affirmative of the issue, then it becomes now the
- The negative of the issue would be that such duty of the other party, who does not have the
payment has not been made. burden of proof, to defeat the prima facie evidence
- Based on the allegation in the complaint, that produced by the party who has the burden of proof.
despite demands, the defendant has not
paid, so there is already that allegation in the If the adverse party is able to defeat or overturn
in the complaint. So, when the defendant the prima facie evidence produced by the party
alleged that he has already paid it, it has who has the burden of proof, what may the party
been denied by the plaintiff. who has the burden of proof do when prima facie
evidence has already been defeated or
The affirmative of the issue is whether or not the overturned by the evidence of the adverse party?
defendant has paid his obligation to the plaintiff. What may the party who has the burden of proof
do?
Who is asserting the affirmative of the issue? - He may again present evidence to defeat the
- It is the defendant. So, it's the defendant evidence by the other party. That is also
now, who has the burden of proof with burden of evidence. The burden of evidence
regard to that particular factual issue. will keep on shifting from one party to
- It is not always the plaintiff who has the another, depending on the development of
burden of proof. It may be the defendant, the trial of the case.
depending on who is asserting the
affirmative of a factual issue. The burden of evidence may shift from one party to
another while the burden of proof remains with the
So based on our discussion, what determines party, as fixed by the allegations with the party as
which party as the burden of proof? based on the allegations of the allegations in the
pleadings of the parties.
- They are based on the allegations in the
pleadings of the parties. As to which party
has the burden of proof is determined by the Presumptions
allegations in their pleading of the parties.
If you recall, during the early part of the semester,
What is burden of evidence? we discussed what facts need not be proved. All
- Burden of evidence is the duty of the party to factual issues in a case must be proved by evidence,
present evidence to defeat or overturn the but there are exceptions to that rule certain facts
prima facie evidence produced by the party need not be proved:
who has the burden of proof. It may shift 1) Facts subject to judicial notice
from one party to another depending on the 2) Facts admitted
exigencies or contingencies of the trial of the 3) Facts presumed
case.
How many kinds of presumptions are there?
What is prima facie evidence? - There are two kinds of assumptions.
- Prima facie evidence is the amount of
evidence or quantum evidence, which is What are those kinds of presumptions?
sufficient to establish a fact, in the absence - Conclusive and disputable presumptions.
of contrary evidence.
Why is a presumption conclusive?
________________________________

Page 40 of 55
- It is called as conclusive because the law intentionally and deliberately led another to
does not permit it to be overcome by any believe a particular thing as true, and to act
proof to the contrary. upon such belief, he or she cannot in any
litigation arising out of such declaration, after
Every time there is a presumption whether it's admission, be permitted to falsify it.
conclusive or disputable, there is a party benefited
by the presumption and there is a party prejudiced The phrase “be permitted to falsify it” means
by the presumption. The other party would be the he will not be permitted to present evidence
party against whom the presumption is directed the to falsify, to prove as false, what he led
party who is prejudice by the presumption. If you are another to believe, through his own act,
a party, and a presumption is directed against you, declaration or omission. First, he led another
because it prejudices you, you would want to to believe that a particular thing is true and
contradict it. But if it is a conclusive presumption that that person was led to believe that a
is directed against you, you are not allowed, even if particular thing is true, acted upon such a
you have evidence to refute the conclusive belief, he was led to believe, and then he
presumption against you. You won't be allowed to acted upon such a belief. Now, the party
present evidence because the presumption is cannot, later on, if there is any litigation
conclusive. arising from his act or declaration or
omission, be permitted to present evidence
Why is a presumption disputable? to disprove what he led another to believe.
- A presumption is turned as disputable And for the other person, to act upon
because the law permits it to be overcome sensibility, he cannot, even if what he led
by contrary evidence or proof to the contrary. another to believe, is false and he can prove
it that it is false, cannot present evidence to
As we mentioned earlier, when there is a disprove what he led another to believe.
presumption whether it is conclusive or disputable, it
will benefit one party and it will prejudice another Let’s illustrate that. Suppose Mr. A, in the
party. The party who is prejudiced by a disputable presence of Mr. B told Mr. C that he was
presumption is allowed to present contrary evidence authorized by Mr. B to sell his house and lot.
to refute the disputable presumption against him. So Mr. B. was listening and did not say a word.
that's distinguishes a conclusive presumption and a Mr. C, believe what Mr. A told him. And he
disputable presumption. was convinced that Mr. A was telling the
truth, because Mr. B did not deny it, he
If the party against whom the disputable presumption remained silent. Mr. C was led to believe that
is directed fails to disprove the presumption, it will Mr. A has the authority to sell Mr. B's house
stand, it will remain. The burden of proof to refute or and lot. Mr. C was not only led to believe that
overturn the disputable presumption is on the party Mr. A was authorized to sell Mr. B's house
against whom the presumption is directed, or the and lot, he acted on such a belief, he
party who will be prejudiced by the presumption, if he executed a deed of absolute sale and paid
fails to produce evidence that is sufficient to defeat for the house and lot to Mr. A. Later on, after
the disputable presumption, that disputable Mr. C paid for the price of the house and lot,
presumption will stand, will remain, or will be Mr. A did not deliver the house and lot to Mr.
sustained. That's the distinction between a C. What did Mr. C do? He filed a case
conclusive presumption and disputable presumption. against Mr. A and Mr. B. Now, Mr. A in his
answer said it was not true that he was
There are only two instances of conclusive authorized, he was just joking. The defense
assumption: of Mr. B is that he did not say anything to Mr.
1) Rule 131, Section 2, paragraph a – If a party A to convince Mr. C and he is not liable for
has by his own declaration, act or omission, anything, he was just silent.
________________________________

Page 41 of 55
Why is a person who is accused of committing a

Was the defense of Mr. A, tenable? Can he crime not required to present evidence to prove
present evidence to prove that he was not really that he did not commit a crime?
authorized to sell and therefore he is not liable as - Because he has this presumption in his
an agent? May Mr. A now present evidence to favor. That's why you need that proof that he
prove that he was never authorized in writing by did not commit the crime. If the other person
Mr. B to sell Mr. B's house and lot? who accused him of committing a crime fails
- No, the defense of Mr. A is not tenable to prove that he committed a crime. That's
because there is a conclusive presumption the end of it. He does not have to prove his
that he is an agent of Mr. B. Mr. A by his own innocence. That presumption will stand
declaration has intentionally and deliberately unless it is overturned or defeated sufficient
led Mr. C to believe that he is an agent of Mr. contrary evidence is presented. That's the
B and because Mr. C was led to believe that nature of disputable presumptions. So that's
he was authorized by Mr. B, Mr. C, acted why I said earlier, when there is a
upon such a belief. He also acted upon presumption, it is always in favor of a party
sense a belief he bought and paid for the and against a party. So, if there is a
house and lot to Mr. A. Based on this presumption in favor a party, he need not
conclusive presumption, we cannot now be prove what is presumed because it's the law,
permitted to present evidence to prove that it's the rules of court that creates the
what he led Mr. C to believe is not true. He presumption for him.
cannot be permitted to falsify what he led Mr.
C to believe as true. Although, what he led
Mr. C to believe it's really not true. RULE 132: PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
May Mr. B present evidence to prove that he Examination of Witnesses

never authorized Mr. A to sell his house and lot?
- By his omission, he intentionally and Section 1 provides that the examination of
deliberately led Mr. C to believe that the witness shall be done under shall be done in
agency was true and also led him to act open court. What does “in open court” mean?
upon such belief. In this case, he cannot - In open court means that it must be open to
present evidence to disprove the agency. He anyone who wants to observe the
cannot be allowed to falsify what he led Mr. examination of the witness, subject to the
C to believe, by his omission. By his limitation of the space inside the court.
omission, he failed to say something.
Normally a person will deny if it is not true. Open court also means that the examination of a
witness shall be done in the presence of the judge,
(We don't have to discuss the second because I'm and in the presence of the other court officers and in
sure you understand now. What is meant by the presence of the adverse party. That's the more
conclusive assumption. So please, plus just read the significant and more important meaning of in open
instances of disputable presumptions.) court.
Let's just mention the first instance of disputable Why is it important that the examination of a
presumption that the person is innocent of a witness be done in open court, which means in
crime or wrong. What does that mean? the presence of judge, why is that important?
- A person who is accused of committing a - It is important, because the judge says that
crime does not have the burden to prove that trier of facts and law, therefore, the judge
he is innocent, that he did not commit the should be able to observe the demeanor of
crime. the person who is testifying.
________________________________

Page 42 of 55
How will that help the judge if he's able to What do you call that right of a witness which is
observe the demeanor, the behavior, the not to give an answer, which will subject him to a
mannerisms of the witness, while he is penalty for an offense?
testifying? Why is that important to the judge? - It is called the right against self-incrimination.
- Because the judge can determine whether
the witness is telling the truth. May a witness refuse to take the witness stand
by invoking his right against self-incrimination?
So that's why the judge cannot, anyway, since all - No, it cannot be invoked in refusing to take
courts now our courts of record everything that is the witness stand.
said in the course of the trial of a case by the judge,
by the witnesses, by the parties by their counsels are Why not?
recorded. - Because it can only be invoked in if the
witness is asked a particular question and
But the judge should not rely on the transcript of the answer to the question, may subject him
the stenographic notes of the testimonies of the to a penalty for an offense. That's the only
witnesses. Why not? time when the witness may invoke his right
- Because it is important for trial judge to against self-incrimination not by refusing to
observe the witnesses while they are take the witness stand.
testifying as the trier of facts they will
determine what are the facts of the case What is the order in the examination of an
now. Since they are the trier of facts, it is individual witness?
important for the judges to be able to - The first is the examination in chief of the
observe the behavior, the demeanor of the proponent’s witness under facts relevant to
witnesses while they are testifying. the issue
This is the reason why appellate courts are What do you call that examination in chief?
enjoined by the Supreme Court to give great - Direct examination
weight and to respect the findings of facts of trial
courts. Why? Direct examination, by whom?
- Because it is the trial courts, it is the trial - By the proponent
judges who are able to observe the
witnesses in the case while they are then followed by cross examination by the opponent
testifying. Appellate courts may just review and then re-direct examination by the proponent and
records of the case. They don't see then re-cross examination by the opponent.
witnesses while they testify. As much as
possible, appellate courts should not disturb Who is the proponent?
the findings of the facts of trial courts, - The proponent is the party presenting the
because they are the ones who are able to witness.
observe the witnesses while they are
testifying. That is what is meant by in open So, direct examination, the first in the order of
court in the presence of the judge. examination of an individual witness is that the party
who is presenting the witness will first examine the
Section 2, as you can see that all courts now our witness. That's the direct examination, or the
courts of record. The proceedings are to be examination in chief by the party presenting the
recorded. Before some courts, under the old rules, witness. Of course, it will be done through his
some courts are not courts of record, but under the counsel, not the party himself, but it is of course,
present rules, all courts now in the Philippines, our whatever the council does, it is done on behalf of his
courts of record. client, by the party.
________________________________

Page 43 of 55
Who is the opponent? - To achieve that, the cross examiner will,

- The opponent is the person against whom usually, as a matter of strategy, will limit his
the witness is being presented. questions to those answerable by yes or no.
And he will not allow the witness to explain
What should the proponent achieve during the his answer. When the witness tries to explain
direct examination of a witness? his answer, the cross examiner will prevent
- Of course, the proponent, would have made him: “I'm not asking you to explain, you just
allegations of facts in his pleadings, whether answer my question, yes or no? Don't
he is the defendant or the plaintiff, he would explain. I'm not asking you to explain your
have alleged facts in his pleading, whether answer.”
it's the complaint, or the answer. The
proponent when he presents a witness, he What about the re-direct?
should make sure that that witness knows - By the time the cross examination is done,
certain facts that he alleged in his pleading, the credibility of the witness must have been
so that the witness can testify. He should destroyed by the cross examiner, because
make sure that the witness knows, through the purpose of the cross examiner is to
personal knowledge, those facts that he destroy the credibility witness.
alleged in his pleading so that that witness
can testify on certain facts that the proponent The purpose of the proponent during the redirect
alleged in his pleading. examination is to rehabilitate the credibility of his
- A single witness may not know all the facts witness and to allow the witness to explain his
that the proponent alleged in his pleading. answers given during the cross examination.
He may present several witnesses so that he
will be able to prove all the facts that he Because the credibility of the witness may have been
alleged in his pleading. So that is called destroyed by the cross examination. One way of
direct examination, when the proponent doing that is to ask the witness to explain his
wants his witnesses to present, to testify, on answers during the cross examination because he
the facts that he alleged in his pleading, was not allowed to explain his answers during the
because the witness knows those facts of cross.
their personal knowledge.
Example: “Mr. Witness when you were being cross
Direct examination is followed by the cross examined, you were asked this question and you
examination, to be conducted by the party against answered yes. Would you please explain to the court
whom the against whom that witness was presented what you meant by your answer?”
by the proponent. This is now the opponent
examining the witness that was presented against So, by the time the redirect examination is done, so
him. the witness's credibility may have been rehabilitated.
So that is followed by the re-cross examinations.
What do you think would now be in the objective
of the opponent when he cross examines a So what do you think would the opponent do or
witness? try to achieve during the re-cross examination on
- The objective of the opponent is to destroy the witness against him?
or impeach the credibility of the witness, - During the re-cross examination the
himself, or the credibility of his testimony opponent once again, tries to destroy or
during cross examination. Sometimes, the impeach the credibility of the witness or his
witness is credible but his testimony may not testimony.
be credible. The testimony may be
impeached by the cross examiner separately What is a leading question?
from the witness himself.
________________________________

Page 44 of 55
- A leading question is one which suggests to Here, you are asking the witness where he was on a
the witness the answer that the examining certain date, at a certain time. You are not supplying
party desires. any facts.
Leading question is prohibited during the direct Witness: I was at the house of my friend at No. 20
examination, during cross you may ask the witness, Yelen Catral, BF Resort Village, Las Pinas.
the witness against you, leading questions. In fact,
as a matter of strategy, a cross examiner will confine Prosec: Mr. witness, you said that on November 15
these questions to leading questions, but during 2020 at around 10pm you were at the house of your
direct examination by the proponent of his own friend at No. 20 Yelen Catral, BF Resort Village, Las
witness, leading question is not allowed. Pinas City, would you tell us if anything unusual
happen while you were there at the house of your
How would the examining party do that? friend?
- When the question to the witness contains
the facts already, and all the witness has to Witness: Yes. While I was there at the house of my
do is to answer yes or no, then that is friend on November 15 2020, at around 10pm I saw
suggesting to the witness they answered that the accused arguing with my friend and then all of a
the examining party desires, the proponent. sudden the accused took a gun from his pocket, and
then I saw the accused shoot and killed the victim.
Let say, the case is for murder. The witness was
presented by the prosecution. And the witness was So that's how you would proceed so that your
asked by the prosecutor. He supposed to be an questions would not be objected as leading question.
eyewitness.
GR: Leading questions are not allowed during direct
Prosec: Mr. Witness, were you at the house of the examination.
victim on November 15 2020, when the accused shot
him? Exceptions:
1) On cross examination;
The proponent gives the address at around 10pm 2) Questioning an unwilling or hostile witness;
when the accused shot the victim or were you at the 3) On Preliminary matters;
house of the victim at No. 20 Yelen Catral, BF 4) When the witness is an adverse party;
Resort, Las Pinas City when the accused shot the 5) When there is difficulty in getting direct and
victim? intelligible answers from ignorant witness, or
when the witness is a child of tender years,
That is an example of a leading question as the facts or who is of feeble mind or a deaf-mute;
that the witness should be testifying to are already
contained in the question. Why is the opponent allowed to ask leading
questions during this cross examination of the
It was the counsel, the examining party, who witness?
supplied the facts. - Because he cannot lead a witness who is
against him.
So how would you rephrase that question so that - But if the proponent is examining his own
it would not be a leading question? witness, he can lead. That should not be
- Prosec: Mr. Witness, where were you at allowed.
around 10pm on November 15 2020? Do
you recall where you were on at around On preliminary matters, of course, it is difficult not to
10pm on November 15 2020? ask leading questions. What is your name? Where
do you leave? What is your profession? What is your
________________________________

Page 45 of 55
occupation? So, these questions are preliminary But the witnesses has not yet testified that on the
matters. time of the commission of the crime, on that
particular day, he was at the house of the victim. And
They cannot be objected to the ground they are yet the question says, when you are at the house of
leading questions because these are preliminary the victim, what do you see?
questions. Although these questions are leading, but
they are on preliminary matters. So that the question assumes as true a fact that has
not yet testified to by the witness, the witnesses has
Leading questions are also allowed when there is not yet testified that at the time of the commission of
difficulty in getting direct and intelligent answer from the crime he was at the house of the victim, although
a witness who is ignorant. Sometimes, if you don't it is true that he was at the house of the victim when
ask leading questions to an ignorant witness, it's very the crime was committed. But he has not testified on
difficult to get an answer from him. that, he has not testified that he was at the house of
the victim, but the question already assume that he
If the witness is a child of tender years now it's was at the house of the victim. So that will be a
difficult to ask questions that are not leading so the misleading question.
proponent is allowed to ask leading questions on a
witness who is a child of tender years or if the Are misleading questions allowed?
witness is of feeble mind or a deaf mute or if the - No.
witness is a hostile or an unwilling witness.
Are there instances when misleading questions
Why are leading questions allowed on an are allowed?
unwilling or hostile witness? - No. There are no exceptions. No instance
- When the witness is an unwilling or hostile when they are allowed unlike leading
witness, it is as if the witness is an adverse questions.
witness. That is why even the proponent
during the direct examination, if his witness What is impeachment of a witness?
is an unwilling or hostile witness, it is as if he - It is the process of presenting evidence to
is cross examining the witness against him. destroy or diminish the credibility of a
witness whose testimony has already been
The proponent, the party who called the adverse admitted.
party as his witness may now ask leading questions
even during the direct examination because he Which party may impeach a witness?
cannot lead that witness who is adverse. So in those - GR: The opponent, the party against whom
instances, leading questions are allowed even during the witness was presented may impeach the
the direct examination because during the cross witness.
leading questions are always allowed are always - Exceptions: (impeachment by the proponent)
allowed. 1) When the witness becomes hostile or
What is a misleading question? unwilling; and
- A misleading question is one which assumes 2) If the witness is an adverse party
as true a fact not yet testified to by the
witness, or contrary to that which he/she How may the opponent impeach the witness?
previously stated. 1) By showing contradictory evidence;
2) By evidence know that the general
Let's illustrate. The same case for murder. reputation of the witness for truth, honesty
and integrity is bad;
Prosec: When you were at the house of the victim 3) By evidence that he/she has made at other
what did you see, Mr. Witness? times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony; and
________________________________

Page 46 of 55
4) By evidence that the witness has been - Section 19. Classes of documents. – For the
convicted by final judgment of an offense purpose of their presentation in evidence,
punishable by a penalty in excess of 1 year documents are either public or private.
or the crime involved moral turpitude, except Public documents are:
if the conviction was subject of amnesty or (a) The written official acts, or
annulment of the conviction. records of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and
As a rule, the proponent cannot impeach his own public officers, whether of the
witness unless they become hostile or unwilling or Philippines, or of a foreign country;
the witness is an adverse party. (b) Documents acknowledged before
a notary public except last wills and
The proponent may impeach his own witness in the testaments;
same way by which the opponent may impeach the (c) Documents that are considered
witness against him, except by evidence of the public documents under treaties and
witness’s, bad character. conventions which are in force
between the Philippines and the
GR: a witness cannot read his testimony. He must country of source; and
testify orally. (d) Public records, kept in the
Philippines, of private documents
Exception: Rule 132, Sec 16. A witness may be required by law to be entered
allowed to refresh his or her memory respecting a therein.
fact by anything written or recorded by himself or
herself, or under his or her direction, at the time All other writings are private.
when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or
at any other time when the fact was fresh in his or How are private documents presented in
her memory and he or she knew that the same was evidence?
correctly written or recorded. - Section 20. Proof of private documents. –
Before any private document offered as
So, while testifying, the witness may be allowed to authentic is received in evidence, its due
read a record that he himself prepaid or that was execution and authenticity must be proved
prepared under his direction while the fact a when by any of the following means:
the fact occurred or when the fact was fresh is in his (a) By anyone who saw the document
memory. That is called revival of present memory. executed or written;
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker; or
(c) By other evidence showing its due
What about revival of past recollection? execution and authenticity.
- A witness may also testify from such a
writing or record, though he or she retains no Any other private document need only be identified
recollection of the particular facts, if he or as that which it is claimed to be.
she is able to swear that the writing or record
correctly stated the transaction when made; What about a public document? What must be
but such evidence must be received with done before it is admitted in evidence?
caution. - By merely an offer. It is due execution and
authenticity need not be proved.
For the purpose of their presentation in evidence,
how are documents classified? Why is it that private documents that are
acknowledge before a notary public is
considered a public document?
________________________________

Page 47 of 55
- 2 ways of notarization: - Because the notary public is required to

1) JURAT – e.g. affidavit. Executed by submit a copy of the notarized private
one party only document to the Office of the Clerk of Court,
2) ACKNOWLEDGMENT – executed of the Court which commissioned him to be a
notary public. The document will be kept in
by 2 or more parties
the office of the Clerk of Court and will be
kept in the public office, that is why the
When in a private document is acknowledged before document will now be a public document
a notary public, or is notarized by acknowledgement, because it is now kept in a public office, and
the notary public is required to retain at least two hence may now be examined by any person
copies of the document. One, is for his one is for his who may be interest in that particular
own file, and the other one he is required to submit document.
to the office of the clerk of court of court, which
EXCEPTION: Last will and testament
commissioned him as a notary public now. And that
- A last will and testament, although only one
document, which was acknowledged before the
party is involved is notarized by
notary public will be there at the office of the clerk of acknowledgment. It is acknowledged before
court. And it could be examined by any person who a notary public but it does not become a
might be interested on such document. Hence, the public document because the notary public is
same becomes public document. not required to submit a copy of that last will
and testament to the office of the Clerk of
But a document that is notarized by JURAT is not Court; otherwise all other private documents
required to be submitted by the notary public to the which is notarized by acknowledgment may
become public documents
office of the clerk of court which commissioned him
as a notary public and therefore, a document that is When a last will and testament is acknowledged
notarized by Jurat does not become a public before a notary public, will it become a public
document, it remains private document. document?
- No. The notary public does not submit a
Why does a last will and testament, a private copy of the last will and testament to the
document, which is acknowledged before a clerk of court.
notary public, does not become a public
What are other documents considered as public
document?
documents?
- When the last will and testament is notarized
- Documents that are considered as public
by acknowledgement, the notary public is documents under treaties and conventions to
NOT required to submit a copy of the last will which the Philippines is a party.
and testament to the office of the clerk of
court. What else?
- Private records required by law to be kept in
Two kinds of notarization? a public office. Because although they are
1) Jurat - it is not a public document since it is private documents, since they are required
not submitted to the clerk of court; submitted by law to be kept in a public office, they also
by one party only (affidavit); become public documents like private
 Wordings: “Subscribed and sworn to documents that are acknowledged before a
before me xxx” notary public. They are also submitted to a
2) Acknowledgment - used in contracts public office so they become public
wherein two parties are involved; documents
 Wordings: “Before me, xxxx,
personally appeared xxx” What then are considered as private documents?
- All documents which are not public
RULE: Private documents acknowledged before documents are private documents.
a Notary Public become public documents
(except last will and testament). Why is that? Documents are classified between public and
________________________________

Page 48 of 55
private documents for the purpose of Exceptions:

presentation of in evidence. 1) the opinion of an expert witness is
- REASON: This means there is a different admissible in evidence;
rule that applies on presentation of evidence 2) the opinion of an ordinary witness admissible
on public documents and another way of
presenting evidence on private documents. What is the proper basis that must be given
- DIFFERENCE: the difference between before an ordinary witness may testify on his
admission in evidence of a private document opinion regarding a handwriting?
and admission in evidence of a public
- It must be shown that, that ordinary witness
document is that:
has sufficient familiarity with the handwriting
1) Before a private document is
of the person whose handwriting is in
admitted in evidence the offeror
question.
must first prove its due execution
and authenticity;
Example: he will testify that let us say he has been a
2) Whereas a public document is
secretary of the person whose handwriting is in
admissible in evidence without the
question, we are seeing a lot of documents
offer or having to prove it's due
containing the signatures and handwriting of the
execution and authenticity
person whose handwriting and signature is in
question. so that he can say that he has sufficient
How are private documents admitted in
familiarity with the handwriting and signature of the
evidence?
person whose handwriting and signature are in
- Through due execution and authenticity. question. Then he will say based on his opinion, the
Before presenting it to the Court, the offeror handwriting and signature appearing in that
must prove to the court that the private document is that of the person or whose handwriting
document was duly executed and authentic. and signature is in question.
- NOTE: when a document is duly executed, it
is therefore authentic
So, an ordinary witness may testify on his opinion
regarding a handwriting of a person provided he is
How is the due execution and authenticity of the able to show that's the proper basis that he has
private documents established? sufficient familiarity with the handwriting and
- First, the due execution and authenticity of a signature of the person whose handwriting and
private document is established by a signature are in question. This is how the second
testimony of a witness who saw the way of proving the due execution and
document being executed by a party/ies. genuineness of a private document is proven.
(Testimony of eyewitness; he will testify that
he saw the execution of the document)
Third, by other evidence showing its due execution
- Another way is by evidence of the
and authenticity.
genuineness of the signature or handwriting
of the maker (the person who signed the
NOTE: before the court will admit in evidence the
private document or the person who wrote
private document the offeror must first establish its
the private document).
genuineness and due execution of that private
document
What is the proper basis for an ordinary witness
may testify his opinion on a handwriting?
What is required before a public document is
- That the ordinary witness states his opinion
presented/admitted as evidence?
on a handwriting with which he or she has
- The document should be offered in evidence
sufficient familiarity.
as a public document. If the court is
convinced that the document is public, there
NOTE: Rule on Opinion as Evidence, in relation to
is no need for the offeror to prove its due
testimony of the witness as to opinion on handwriting
execution and authenticity.
of an ordinary witness
How are official records presented in evidence?
General Rule: The opinion of a witness is not
1) Either you present evidence in an official
admissible in evidence.
publication of said official record (official
________________________________

Page 49 of 55
gazette) or; How may the offeror have a document containing

2) by presentation of a copy of the official alterations explained the alterations So, that it
record (certified true copy). may be admitted in evidence. Stated otherwise,
How will the alteror explain the alterations in the
Example: you want to present a certificate of title, documents presented as evidence?
you cannot have the original before the Registry of - The party may show that:
Deeds, however you can present it by way of 1) the alteration was made by another,
certified true copy. Since it is a public document, you without his or her concurrence; or
do not have to prove the due execution and 2) the alteration was made with the consent
authenticity of the certified true copy. of the parties affected by it;
3) the alternation was otherwise properly or
Why not present the official record itself? innocently made;
- Because of the rule on irremovability of 4) the alteration did not change the
public records. You cannot get the official meaning or language of the instrument.
copy of said record in the public office and
present it as evidence. As a general rule, for a private document to be
presented in evidence, its due execution and
NOTE: written official acts or records of official acts authenticity must be duly proved. What is the
of sovereign authority officials by different tribunals exception?
or public officers, whether of the Philippines or a - If the document is an ancient document
foreign country are considered public documents (Ancient document rule)
Suppose the written official act or its record you How will it be exempted? What will be shown?
want to present is in a public office in a foreign - The document must be more than 30 years
country, what is required before it can be old and that:
presented as evidence? 1) It is produced from a custody in which it
- If the foreign country in which the public would naturally be found if genuine,
document is kept is a party to a treaty or 2) It is unblemished by any alteration or
convention to which the Philippines is also a circumstances of suspicion.
party and under the treaty, that public
document is considered a public document Section 34, Rule 132 provides that the court shall
and prescribes the manner of how that consider no evidence, which has not been
document may be presented in evidence that formally offered- In the word consider what does
should be followed it mean that the court shall not consider
evidence that has not been formally offered?
What if the foreign country, where the public How does the Court consider evidence? When
document is kept is not a party to the same does the Court consider evidence?
treaty or convention to which the Philipines is a - What is meant by the court considering
party? evidence is that the court considers the
1) The Public Document must be accompanied evidence in deciding the case, meaning the
by a certification from the embassy/ court takes the evidence into consideration
legation/consul-general/consul agent of the
when it decides the case. it means that the
Philippines of that foreign country where the
court will base its judgment on the evidence
public document is kept.
2) Attested and Certified as true copy by a presented. But before the court may base its
custodian of said official record in that public judgment on the evidence, the evidence
foreign country/foreign office must be formally offered, even if the
evidence was presented, if it was not
What is the effect of documents containing formally offered the court will not consider it
alterations presented as evidence? in deciding the case, even if it is admissible,
- They are not admissible as evidence unless even if it was already presented but if it was
the alterations are properly explained by the
not formally offered, the court cannot base
offeror before the Court.
its judgment on the evidence, even if the
evidence is both relevant and competent. if it
________________________________

Page 50 of 55
was not formally offered the court cannot Juan Dela Cruz to prove the following…”
consider it in deciding the case. That's what
is meant by considering the evidence. Documentary and Object Evidence:
“Your Honor, I am formally offering as evidence
Exhibit “A,” which is a demand letter to prove that a
THEREFORE, it means that the court will make the
demand was made by the plaintiff on the defendant.”
evidence as the basis for its judgment only if the
evidence has been formally offered. When evidence is formally offered, the adverse
party may object to the formal offer of evidence.
How is evidence formally offered? When should the formal offer of testimonial
- Orally. evidence be made?
- As soon as the party formally offers the
What is done by the party when it formally offers testimony of the witness, the adverse party
the evidence? must immediately object to it.
- Let us say there are three kinds of evidence
testimonial evidence, documentary evidence When should the adverse party object to the
and object evidence. So let's use as an questions propounded by the testimony of the
example, testimonial evidence. So, before witness?
the court may consider testimony, the - The adverse party must object as soon as
the ground therefore becomes reasonably
testimony of a party of a witness. It should
apparent.
be first formally offered. So, the proponent of - “Objection, Your Honor. The question being
the witness must first formally offer in propounded calls for hearsay evidence.”
evidence, the testimony of a witness so that
the court may consider the testimony of the How will the adverse party object?
witness. - The adverse party should state his ground/s
for objection.
So how will the proponent of a witness formally
offer in evidence, the testimony of this witness? When should the Court?
- The Court may either sustain or overrule the
What will he say? What will he do?
objection.
- Evidence is formally offered by stating the
purpose for which the evidence is being Is the Court required to explain the reason for
offered sustaining/overruling the objection?
- No.
What should be stated when evidence is formally
offered? If the objection is based on two or more grounds,
- Purpose for which the evidence is being what should the Court state when it sustains the
offered. objection?
- The Court must specify the grounds on
When should the formal offer of evidence be which it is sustaining the objection.
made?
1) At the time the witness is called to testify When may an adverse party make a continuing
(when he is called to the witness stand) in objection and on what grounds?
the case of testimonial evidence. - A continuing objection is proper when it is
2) For documentary and object evidence, reasonably apparent in the course of the
after the party has completed the examination of a witness the question being
presentation of his witnesses. propounded are of the same class and as to
which objection has been made, whether
such objection was sustained or overruled.
How should the testimony of a witness be
formally offered? Example: The proponent has been making a series
Testimonial Evidence: of questions which appear to be objectionable, it is
“Your Honor, I am formally offering the testimony of not necessary for the adverse party to object to the
________________________________

Page 51 of 55
series of questions. It is sufficient for him to just state Which party will be defeated if no evidence is
or put on record his continuing objection. given?
- Party having the burden of proof who is
What is tender of excluded evidence? required to produce preponderance of
- A party offered in evidence a document or evidence in a civil action.
thing but the adverse party objected to its
admission and the Court sustained the What is the test to determine which party has the
objection. Although it was excluded by the burden of proof?
Court, the party may tender said excluded - Party who asserts the affirmative of the issue
evidence that it should still be made part of has the burden of proof with respect to that
the record. factual issue.
If the excluded evidence is testimonial evidence, What is preponderance of evidence?

how will the tender of excluded evidence be - The amount of evidence produced by one
made? party is superior than the weight (greater
- The proponent has a question to his witness weight) of evidence produced than the other
and the court sustained party.
Why is it important for the proponent to make a The party who does not have the burden of proof
tender of excluded evidence? only has to produce an equal weight of evidence as
- Definitely, the Court will not consider compared to the adverse party who has the burden
excluded evidence despite the tender. But it of proof who must produce superior weight of
may be considered by the appellate court on evidence.
appeal.
Who is a party that must produce proof of guilty
beyond reasonable doubt?
RULE 133: WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF - The Prosecution.
EVIDENCE
What amount of evidence must the accused
What is the burden of proof? produce to justify his acquittal?
- Duty of a party to present evidence on the - The accused is not required to produce any
facts and issue necessary to establish his or evidence to warrant his acquittal as there is
her claim or defense by the amount of a presumption of innocence.
evidence required by law. [S1 par. 1, R131]
[If the prosecution cannot produce that amount of
What is the amount of evidence required by law? evidence beyond reasonable doubt, the accused
- It depends if it's a criminal case or a civil (even if he did not present an aorta of evidence), he
case. should be acquitted. It is as if he already presented
evidence that he is innocent.]
Which party is required to produce
preponderance of evidence? What amount of evidence must the prosecution
- Party having the burden of proof who is produce to defeat the presumption of innocence
required to produce preponderance of of the accused?
evidence in a civil action. - Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Which party has a claim in a civil case?

- Plaintiff.
When do we say that the plaintiffs have
How do we know which party has a burden of preponderance of evidence over the defendant?
proof in a civil case? Which party in a civil case
- When that party has produced greater
must produce preponderance of evidence?
- The party who has the burden of proof, must weight of evidence, compared to the
produce preponderance of evidence. evidence by the other party; so, the
________________________________

Page 52 of 55
preponderance of evidence simply means evidence to prove his innocence, because of that
superior weight. presumption of innocence.
- A party who has produced superior weight of What amount of evidence should the prosecution
evidence has preponderance of evidence. produce to defeat that presumption of
So, the party having the burden of proof innocence?
must always produce superior weight of - Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
evidence to prevail in the case.
What is the amount of evidence required in
The party having the burden of proof to prevail in administrative cases?
the case must produce preponderance or - Substantial evidence.
superior weight of evidence. What about the
What is substantial evidence?
other party who does not have the burden of
- It is the amount of relevant evidence which a
proof? What amount of evidence should he
reasonable mind might accept as adequate
produce to prevail in the case? Should he also to justify the conclusion.
produce superior weight of evidence to prevail in
the case? What is the amount of evidence that is required
- No. It's only the party having the burden of to warrant the filing of Information against the
proof. the party that does not have the respondent after the preliminary investigation?
burden of proof needs only to produce equal - Probable cause.
weight of evidence to prevail in the case,
that’s what we call equipoise rule of What is probable cause?
- Probable cause is sufficient ground to
evidence.
engender a well-founded belief that a crime
has been committed and the respondent is
What is the amount of evidence in a criminal probably guilty thereof, and should be held
action? for trial.
- Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
What is the amount of evidence required for
Are both parties in a criminal action required to issuance of a search warrant?
produce proof beyond reasonable doubt? NO. - The Court wherein the search warrant is
applied for must determine the probable
1) The prosecution in a criminal action
cause for the issuance of a search warrant.
must produce proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction of Is circumstantial evidence sufficient to justify the
the accused. conviction of the accused?
2) The accused is not required to produce - Yes, with the following requirements,
any amount of evidence to warrant his 1) There is more than one circumstance;
acquittal because the accused is presumed 2) The facts from which the inferences are
innocent derived are proven; and
3) The combination of all the circumstances
is such as to produce a conviction
So, if the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the beyond reasonable doubt.
accused beyond reasonable doubt, even if the
accused does not produce any amount of evidence, What is collateral matter?
because of that presumption of innocence, then he - It is a matter of fact that is not the fact in
deserves an acquittal, he should be acquitted. issue.
Because of that presumption of innocence. It is as if
at the start of the criminal action. The accused has What is the rule on collateral matter?
- As a rule, evidence on collateral matter is not
already produced evidence to justify his acquittal, or
admissible as it is not the fact in issue.
to prove his innocence because of the presumption
of innocence. It is as if we have already presented Is there an instance where evidence in a
________________________________

Page 53 of 55
collateral matter may be admitted? Is the fact that the accused has a motive for
- When evidence on a collateral tends to a killing the victim, Is that an issue?
certain degree to prove a fact or an issue. - No, it is not an issue. It's a collateral
That evidence on a collateral matter is what matter. because the fact of the issue is
we call circumstantial evidence
whether or not it was the accused, who
Why would evidence on a fact which is not the shot and killed the victim.
issue, why would that be admitted? Why is it that
in certain instances evidence on a fact which is May evidence on that collateral matter
not an issue may be admitted? (motive) may be admitted?
- It's because that when that fact that - Yes, because if it is proven that the
collateral matter is established the existence accused has a motive for killing,
or non-existence of a fact in issue may be although nobody saw the accused, shoot
inferred from that collateral matter. So if a and kill the victim. But it is proven, if
collateral matter is established, which is not evidence is presented to prove that the
allowed, but if it is established by evidence, accused has a motive for killing the
then the existence or non-existence of the victim, then it could be inferred that it
fact an issue may be inferred from that was the accused who shot and killed the
collateral matter, which is established by victim because he has a motive, but as
evidence. that is not sufficient to warrant the
conviction of the accused even if it is
The nature of a circumstantial evidence? shown he has a motive. That is not
enough. So other circumstantial
- It is evidence on s fact which is not in fact an
evidence must be presented.
issue, but from which the fact in issue may
be inferred.
2) Positive for ballistic test
When may circumstantial evidence be sufficient
to warrant the conviction of an accused in a After shooting the victim after being tested
criminal action? for ballistic test, it was shown that the gun
that was used in shooting the victim was
- The first requirement is that there must be
more than one circumstantial evidence. owned by the accused is registered in the
name of the accused. Is that issue in that
case for murder?
Example: Suppose the accused is charged with
- No. That is not an issue, whether or not
murder there, there is no eyewitness or the
the gun used in killing the victim or its
prosecution has no eyewitness. the prosecution has
own by the accused. that is a collateral
no direct evidence. Since the prosecution has no
matter
direct evidence, the prosecution may present
circumstantial evidence.
May that collateral matter be proved?
What are examples of circumstantial evidence? - Yes, because if it is shown that the gun
that was used to shoot the victim was
1) Motive of the accused to kill the victim
owned by the accused, then we can infer
that since it was since the gun that was
Is motive to kill the accused a fact in
used to shoot the victim was owned by
issue?
the accused then most probably it was
- No, it is not. The fact in issue is
the accused who shot and killed a victim.
whether or not it was whether or not
We have circumstantial evidence now.
the accused who shot the victim
But that may not be enough.
________________________________

Page 54 of 55
3) Unexplained flight of the accused after

commission of the crime.
The accused went into hiding,

unexplained flight of the accused. is that
an issue in the criminal case for murder?
- No, that's a collateral matter. But the
prosecution may present evidence to
prove that the accused after the
shooting of the victim went into
hiding. From that circumstantial
evidence, the court may infer that
since the accused went into hiding
immediately after the shooting, then
most probably it was the accused
who was shot and killed the victim.
If we combine all this circumstantial evidence,

may amount to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
There should be more than one circumstantial
evidence.
________________________________

Page 55 of 55

Rem Evid 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

Rem Evid 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSOLIDATED REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 2 TRANSCRIBED NOTES: EVIDENCE

RULE 128: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

- In factum probandum, the ultimate facts are

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

- The basis would be the evidence presented.

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

When is evidence competent? When evidence is excluded by the Constitution,

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

- Judicial evidence is as a rule conclusive. - He is misunderstood, he, in fact, did not

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

palpable, also of tangible. If something is

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

the custody or under the control of the party

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

- A chart or just a calculation may be contents of a document, no evidence shall be

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by is therefore admissible to the same extent as

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

What is an agreement? Under the NEW rules, a party may present

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

3) the validity of the written agreement

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

2a.) Disqualification by reason of Who is considered a physician/psychotherapist?

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

against him as an admission, as an implied act, declaration,or omission of another,

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

- The act, declaration or omission of a person makes a declaration, it is as if that

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Old rule: It would be a hearsay when with a

Hearsay So, for example, I am the witness. And then I am

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

no amount of evidence, he deserves to be What is the amount of evidence required

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

What is the affirmative or the issue?

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Remedial Law Review 2: Evidence (1st Semester, A.Y. 2020-2021)

Why is a person who is accused of committing a

May Mr. B present evidence to prove that he Examination of Witnesses