Summary Evidence 2

Page 1 of 112
EVIDENCE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. What are the different sources of our rules on evidence?
The different sources of our Rules on Evidence are as follows:
÷
1. 1987 Constitution;
2. Rules 128 to 134 of the Rules of Court;
3. Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15- 06-10
SC);
4. Resolution of the Supreme Court dated March 14, 1989 on the proposed rules on
evidence;
5. Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, effective January 1, 2013);
6. Child Witness Examination Rule (A.M. No. 004-07-sc, December 15, 2000);
7. DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007);
8. Electronic Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 01-7-01 SC);
9. Rule 115 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure;
10. R.A. No. 4200 otherwise known as the Anti-Wire Tapping Act;
11. R.A. No. 9372, otherwise known as the Human Securities Act;
12. Substantive and remedial statute; and
13. Judicial decisions.
B. Give 20 rules of evidence that are found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
FINAL EXAM – ENUMERATE ALL 97 RULES FOUND IN CONSTITUTION. - EMPHASIS/
1. Article III, Section 1, Due Process of Law
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
x x x.
2. Article III, Section 1, Equal Protection of Laws
x x x nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
3. Article III, Section 2
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
Page 2 of 112
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized.
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except

upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires
otherwise, as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right
to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, as may be provided by law.
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be

recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data
used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors,
to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not
be abridged.
No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance
shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford
Page 3 of 112
the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof

shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section
as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar
practices, and their families.
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to
bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process
of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel,
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have
a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to
have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been
duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases
of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Page 4 of 112
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an
act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
18. Article VIII, Section 1
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts
as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the Government.
19. Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph (5)
Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional

rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged Such rules
shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.
20. Article VIII, Section 14
No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or motion
for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied
without stating the legal basis therefor.
C. Give ten rules of evidence that are found in substantive laws.
1. Any confession, admission or statement obtained as a result of torture shall be

inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings, except if the same is used as
evidence against a person or persons accused of committing torture. (R.A. No.
9745, Section 8)
2. Any listened to, intercepted, and recorded communications, messages,

conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words, or any part or parts
Page 5 of 112
thereof, or any information or fact contained therein, including their existence,

content, substance, purport, effect, or meaning, which have been secured in
violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act, shall absolutely not be admissible
and usable as evidence against anybody in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative,
or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing. (R.A. No. 9372,
Sec. 15)
3. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance,

purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information
therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding
sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-
judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. (R.A. 4200, Sec. 4)
4. Child witness law. (R.A. No. 7610)
5. Evidence is not admissible if obtained in violation of Law on Secrecy of Bank

Deposits (R.A. No. 1405, as amended by PD 1792)
6. Art. 2199 of the NCC (Torts) – Actual damages require proof of pecuniary loss.
7. Art. 2216 of the NCC (Torts) – No proof of pecuniary loss is required in order that
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary.
8. Art. 12 – A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence.
9. Art. 1457 – An implied trust may be proved by oral evidence.
10. Art. 1769 (4) – The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is
prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business.
11. Art. 1785 – A continuation of the business by the partners or such of them as
habitually acted therein during the term, without any settlement or liquidation of the
partnership affairs, is prima facie evidence of a continuation of the partnership.
12. Art. 1820 – An admission or representation made by any partner concerning

partnership affairs within the scope of his authority in accordance with this Title is
evidence against the partnership.
13. Art. 255 – Children born after one hundred and eighty days following the
celebration of the marriage, and before three hundred days following its dissolution
or the separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be legitimate. Against this
presumption no evidence shall be admitted other than that of the physical
impossibility of the husband's having access to his wife within the first one hundred
and twenty days of the three hundred which preceded the birth of the child.
D. How should rules of evidence be construed? - EMPHASIS

Page 6 of 112
-
NOTE: Rule on evidence is technical (they are mere tools that assists the court in
ascertaining the truth with respect to a matter of fact).
authorized
/
RULE 128 GENERAL PROVISIONS. Section 1. Evidence defined. – Evidence
is the means, sanctioned by these [R]ules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
v.
the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1) –
THEY ARE ONLY MAINLY APPLIED IN COURT.
But our Rules of Court may be applied or adopted in administrative cases

even in prosecutor’s office in PI.
If you look on NPS rules, you will find there some provisions of evidence
that are adopted in their rules.
KINDS OF TRUTH
1. absolute truth, - -
2. LEGAL TRUTH – this based on law and evidence – this is what the court
uses in approximation of truth. – if what has been presented as evidence,
then that is the only basis for the outcome of the case – the outcome of the
case relies solely in the evidence presented. (Financial status and the
caliber of the lawyer is not the basis) – EMPHASIS
Considering that the Rules on Evidence is part of the Rules of Court, it shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of securing just,
r
speedy,
- and inexpensive
_
disposition of every action and proceeding. Evidence which appears to be of doubtful
relevancy, incompetency, or admissibility of evidence, the safer policy is to be liberal and
not reject them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admit them unless plainly irrelevant,
immaterial or incompetent.
Just
speedy
in expensive
Page 7 of 112
II. GENERAL CONCEPTS

A. What is evidence?
Evidence is the means, sanctioned in the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in judicial

proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact (not referring only to the main issue, but
any matter of fact that we would want to prove and it could refer to the elements. It could
refer to the action, refer to the elements charged, refer to the elements of a cause of
action. All of these are factum probans) (Section 1, Rule 128)
”Evidence” is understood in the sense of being the “materials presented in court” and not
a methodology or proof.
Evidence is the medium of proof in ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact.
Liberally construed.
B. What is proof? - EMPHASIS
It is a fact that demonstrates something that is real or true.
It is merely the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the
mind resulting from consideration.
Proof is the effect or end result of evidence.
NOTE: Used interchangeably with evidence – but is not actually the same. The
2019 amendment, the SC expressly stated the burden of evidence. There is a
difference between evidence and proof.
C. What are the differences between evidence and proof?
Evidence Proof
As to what it proves A matter of fact Issue / Matters in Issue
Tangible = ex: object Intangible = it is just an idea. It is
evidence, you can hear the degree of persuasion that is
As to form it (testimony) created in the mind of the judge
that the person was killed by the
accused.
rAs to effect rSuggestive r Conclusive
Ex: In proof, X murdered B. While the evidence to be presented in the murder case is X
used a knife to kill B. X collided to the car of B which resulted in the process of killing B.
(object evidence); And testimonies from witnesses who may have seen X using the knife
and the car.
The knife by itself will not prove the issue in this case. The issue in a criminal case is
whether the accused is guilty of the offense charged. In order to resolve the issue, you
OSCOPY
duct dactyl
✓
Page 8 of 112
need proof. But in order to have proof, you need evidence. The knife by itself will not
prove that X killed B; the car by itself will not prove that X killed B; the testimony by itself
will not prove that X killed B. But if you put them together, and you are able to prove all
the elements, then you have proof that X is guilty of the offense. In this case, it is the
prosecution that has the burden of proof.
Under normal circumstances, the person who has the burden of proof has also the burden
of evidence. But under certain circumstances, there will be a shifting of the burden of
evidence.
Ex: in cases of self-defense, the accused admits to the crime committed, but he must
prove the existence of the fact that he committed the crime in self-defense (elements of
self-defense). The burden of evidence is shifted to the accused wherein he must prove
that he committed the crime in self-defense therefore he is not liable. So, if the prosecution
rested its case, the burden of evidence shifted to the defense
DUTY
NOTE: the BURDEN OF PROOF, DOES NOT SHIFT. Incorporated in the rules. So, it is
the burden of evidence that will shift (e.g. Self defense, there is a modification of order
of trial because there is shifting of burden of evidence)
totality
PRIMA FACIE CASE - A prima facie case is that amount of evidence which would
be sufficient to counter-balance the general presumption of innocence, and
warrant a conviction, if not encountered and controlled by evidence tending to
contradict it, and render it improbable, or to prove other facts inconsistent with it,
and the establishment of a prima facie case does not take away the presumption
of innocence which may in the opinion of the jury be such as to rebut and control
it.
The BURDEN OF PROOF STAYS IN THE PROSECUTION.
1. It is just that, by the admission of the accused of the commission of the act,
the state no longer has the burden of evidence
2. because there is already proof (presumption) which consist of the admission
by the accused.
Evidence Proof
There is proof only because of
1 Proof is not evidence itself
evidence
2 The medium of proof Effect or result of evidence
3 Suggestive in nature Conclusive in nature
Raw pieces of information or
A firm confirmation about the fact being
material that can be approved or
4 true after scrutinizing evidence
disproved
( shows that a statement is true)
(shows that a certain fact exists)
Explanation of #3: The knife, the car, and the testimony is only suggestive because it is
probable that X killed B (they are merely suggestive by itself). The knife was found in the
Page 9 of 112
possession of the accused. It would suggest that the knife would have been used by the
accused, but it does not necessarily conclude that X killed B.
Explanation of #4: the knife has blood in it, it could prove that it was used to stabbed
somebody. The car, if there is a hair stuck, then it could prove that it bumped something
or someone. As to the testimony, could prove that what the witness said happened. The
facts that are established by the evidence to exists are called the evidentiary facts.
D. What is the difference between factum probans and factum probandum? -

EMPHASIS
ultimate Factum Probandum Factum Probans evidentiary

'
to Refers to the ultimate fact to be proven, Refers to the evidentiary facts by which the
Fatt
facts or the proposition to be established. factum probandum will be proved.
be
proven That, which a party
wants to prove to the court.
Hypothetical Existent
Examples: guilt or innocence; existence Examples: the written contract; the
of a breach of contract; existence of an promissory note to prove the existence of
obligation; the fact of payment; the an unpaid debt.
injury or damage incurred.
In short, factum probandum is the purpose why you are presenting your evidence.
Factum probans would be the using of the knife, and car, testimony. Referring to the facts
established by the pieces of evidence. So, from evidence, you derive your factum
probans. Based on the factum probans, we establish the factum probandum. Factum
probandum is that murder occurred.
Ex: In this case for murder, the element of the act of killing is a factum probandum. The
mortal wound is a factum probans (also an evidence). We have to show the wound (depth
of the wound, etc.) to the Court if it is mortal or not. The evidence to be presented is
testimony from the expert witness, pictures of the wound, autopsy report. The element to
be proven might be treachery and intent to kill, nature of the wound.
To prove intent to kill, the pieces of evidence that will be presented are not the knife, car
or testimony, but others.
From your pieces of evidence, your means. You are going to derive evidentiary facts from
that pieces of evidence. And that evidentiary facts are what you call factum probans. And
you use that factum probans to prove that matter of fact. And that matter of fact is your
factum probandum.
E. What is quantum of evidence?
It is the amount of evidence needed.

Page 10 of 112
We are quantifying the degree of persuasion (proof) that is created by the evidence
presented.
Hierarchy of Evidence:
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

2. Clear and convincing evidence
alin ang Kapani e weight )
3. Preponderance of evidence - judge
4. Substantial evidence
5. Quantum of evidence needed in preliminary evidence
6. Lower than substantial evidence (Jinggoy case)
F. What is the quantum of evidence required in:
homicide 1. Criminal cases
Rule 133, Section 2, Revised Rules on Evidence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In
a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainty only is required,
or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
2. Contempt proceedings
While the proof need not be beyond reasonable doubt, it must amount to more than a
mere preponderance of evidence. It has been said that the burden of proof in a civil
contempt proceeding lies somewhere between the criminal "reasonable doubt" burden
and the civil "fair preponderance" burden. (Oca vs. Custodio, G.R. No. 199825, July 26,
2017)
3. Civil cases
In civil cases, the basic rule is that the party making allegations has the burden of proving
them by a preponderance of evidence. Moreover, the parties must rely on the strength of
their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent. (Tan
vs. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, February 3, 2016)
4. Disbarment proceedings
The Court has repeatedly stressed that in administrative complaints for disbarment and
suspension against lawyers, the required quantum of proof is clear preponderant
evidence. Preponderance of evidence means evidence which is of greater weight, or
more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. The onus probandi lies on
the complainant, who is duty-bound to prove the veracity of the allegations in his
complaint by a preponderance of evidence. (Anacin vs.Salonga, A.C N. 876, January 8,
2020)
Page 11 of 112
5. Administrative cases
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is

substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when
there is reasonable ground to believe that a person is responsible for the misconduct
complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.
(Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas and Emily Rose Ko Lim Chao vs. Mary Ann T. Castro,
G.R. No. 172637, April 22, 2015)
6. Preliminary investigation
The quantum of evidence now required in preliminary investigation is such evidence

sufficient to "engender a well-founded belief" as to the fact of the commission of a crime
and the respondent's probable guilt thereof. (Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada vs. Office
of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015)
7. Finding probable cause for a warrantless arrest
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than
not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause
need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence
establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing
absolute certainty of guilt. As well put in Brinegar v. United States, while probable cause
demands more than "bare suspicion," it requires "less than evidence which would justify
. . . conviction." A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial.
It is not a pronouncement of guilt. (Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015)
8. Finding probable cause for a warrantless search
- MISSING
G. What is burden of proof?
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. (Republic of
the Philippines vs. Alfredo R. De Borja, G.R. No. 187448)
It is also called onus probandi.
Generally speaking, burden of proof in its second concept passes from party to party as
the case progresses, while in its first concept it rests throughout upon the party asserting
the affirmative of the issue.
Page 12 of 112
H. What is burden of evidence? Reference: 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence;

Far East Bank trust Company vs. Roberto Mar Chante (G.R. No. 170598,
October 9, 2013)
The duty of producing evidence, or the burden of going forward with the evidence, or
simply the production burden or the burden of evidence. (Far East Bank trust Company
vs. Roberto Mar Chante, G.R. No. 170598 October 9, 2013)
It is the duty of producing evidence at the beginning or at any subsequent stage of trial in
order to make or meet a prima facie case.
Generally, whoever claims something to be true has the burden of proving it.
When you commit an act, it is presumed to be intentional. Do we have a rebuttable

presumption that a person who committed an act committed it intentionally?
Intent to kill vs. criminal intent in homicide. In criminal offense, it is not enough to prove
the elements of the offense, but must also prove the mens rea (criminal intent/ malicious
intent).
The state/ prosecution has the burden of proof when it comes to the elements of the
offense charged as well as the mens rea. The burden of proof does not shift no matter
what the accused does. So, the state has still the burden of proving the elements of the
offense charged and the criminal intent.
Ex: The accused admitted of stabbing the person. And from his act of stabbing the
person and the person died, there is a presumption that the act was done with an
unlawful intent. When that happens, there is a shifting of the burden of evidence
because as far as the state is concerned, it no longer has the burden of presenting
evidence to prove that accused has stabbed the person and that the person was
killed with intent. The accused will now present evidence to prove that it was not
with intention to kill the person.
Even with the admission of the accused that he stabbed the person and the person
died, and there is a rebuttable presumption that he was not able to refute, the
prosecution still has the burden of proving the criminal intent of the accused.
1/12/24 I. What are the kinds of evidence according to:
1. Form
:
a. Object Evidence (Real) – evidence directly addressed to the senses of the court
and is capable of being exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
b. Documentary Evidence – it consists of writings or any material containing letters,
words, numbers, figures, symbols, or other modes of written expressions offered
as proof of their contents.
Page 13 of 112
T c. Testimonial Evidence – the testimony of a witness, usually on oath or affirmation

given by his word of mouth in the witness stand.
2. Relevancy
It has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence
(memorize Rule 128, Section 4)
1. Direct Evidence – evidence which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any
inference of presumption. The witness testifies directly of his own knowledge as to
the main facts to be proved
- you don’t need to make inferences because it proves directly the existence
or non-existence of the fact. No need to infer this (I was standing right in
front of the establishment when the accused used a pair of scissors to cut
the gate of the establishment)
- very relevant
Ex: In Robbery cases, testimony of an eyewitness. The belief that it induces is

greater collateral
2. Circumstantial Evidence – Evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue
through an inference drawn from the evidence established.
- they do not directly prove the matter of fact. But if you put them together, you
can come up with an inference that the matter of fact exists or does not exist.
- you need make inferences because it indirectly proves the fact in issue.
- not that relevant, that’s why you qualify it as circumstantial, you have to link
them together.
Ex: One witness saw A holding the pair of scissors for cutting steels.
When a witness saw A going in the establishment and coming out carrying
a jewelry box.
Direct and Circumstantial evidence have the same probative value. Once the pieces of
evidence would qualify as circumstantial, meaning when you put them together, they
create a link that would necessarily link/lead? To the matter of fact that you’re trying to
prove. That would make it circumstantial evidence.
If you cannot prove them to be creating a single link/lead? going towards the fact that you
are going to prove. Then what you have is not circumstantial evidence, what you have is
irrelevant evidence (evidence on collateral matter). it is inadmissible. But once you put all
that irrelevant evidence together, and they create a link towards what you’re trying to
prove, then that becomes circumstantial evidence.
No difference of probative value in circumstantial evidence and direct evidence that

you have. The difference lies in their relevancy.
Page 14 of 112
Once your evidence on collateral matters do not lead directly to what you are trying to
prove but they prove collateral matters that may lead to what you’re trying to prove. Once
you prove them to be circumstantial evidence, they will have the same probative value as
the direct evidence that you may have.
3. Probative value - emphasis
NOTE: We disregard admissibility of evidence (relevancy and competence) on the weight

of the evidence. (An evidence may have relevancy but may have low probative value).
It is referring to the weight of the evidence/ persuasiveness of the evidence Fruit

Evidence OFM
Best a. Primary (Direct) Evidence – which affords the greatest certainty of the fact in
question. poisoning
- greater probative value/ evidence closest to the truth.
- evidence taken from the source.
- may refer to other forms of evidence other than documentary evidence. exclusionary
rule
Ex: In breach of contract, you are going to present the contract itself which would
be the primary evidence to prove the contents of the contract. In a deed of sale,
-
you will prove the area of the lot that was sold, the amount that was paid. Original
copy of deed of sale shall be the primary evidence.
If you have to prove something which is contained by the document under your
original document rule which was used to be called the Original Document Rule
(formerly known as best evidence rule), it is the original document that you should
present, and you will not be allowed to present any other evidence other than the
original copy. It is only when you satisfy certain requirements like if you can prove exclusionary
that the original document got lost or was destroyed that you will be allowed to
present secondary evidence. In that sense, your primary evidence is considered rule
exclusionary.
Ex 2: In illegal possession of firearm, the primary evidence is the firearm itself. It

is not documentary evidence, but an object evidence.
b. Secondary or Substitutionary (Derivative) Evidence – evidence which is

inferior to primary evidence and admissible only in the absence of the latter.
- lesser probative value

- evidence being derivative evidence (derived from primary evidence)
Ex: instead of presenting the deed of sale, present a photocopy if I can’t present
any original copy. (just to illustrate because a photocopy may be a primary
evidence depending on the objections to the admissibility of evidence.) If you prove
that you can’t present the original copy (e.g. it wasn’t acknowledged so there
wasn’t a copy in the OCC; or it was just a private document) because of
circumstances taken in the Rules of Court, it is only then that you are allowed to
present secondary evidence to prove the terms of the deed of sale.
Best Evidence
Page 15 of 112
Rule
But if you have the original copy then you cannot present the photocopy because
the presentation of the original would exclude the presentation of the other copies.
The doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree which is the exclusionary rule to
make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was
illegally obtained = the poisonous tree is the primary evidence; the fruit is the
secondary evidence.
Ex: you smiled at the police. The police didn’t like your smile so he frisked you and
found a sachet of shabu. They interrogated you in a police station, you
admitted/confessed just because of the shabu. The sachet of shabu is a primary
evidence. That confession (fruit of poisonous tree) is derived from the primary
evidence (sachet of shabu). So, if you are going to exclude that in evidence, then
your basis for the exclusion of the confession would be the doctrine of the
poisonous tree. The basis or ground for exclusion of the shabu is the exclusionary
rule (obtained in violation of the Constitutional right of the accused), not the
doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree because it is not the fruit but it is the tree.
In the derivative, there is no exclusion, meaning, you can present in evidence the
shabu, you can present the testimony if you want because the shabu does not
exclude the testimony. Unlike in the documentary evidence where you will not be
allowed to present secondary evidence.
 There is a difference between the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree and
exclusionary rule.
4. Source (People vs. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487 Dec. 12, 1995)
Exclusionary rule known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree."
According to this rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been
unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the " fruit ") derived from it is
also inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result
of the illegal act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same
illegal act.
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized
evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence
illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the
originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.
J. What is the difference between primary and secondary evidence? Reference:

Eugenio San Juan Geronimo vs. Karen Santos (G.R. No. 197099, September
28, 2015); People vs. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487 Dec. 12, 1995
Primary evidence is a kind of evidence which assures the greatest certainty of fact
sought to be proved, and which does not in itself, indicate the existence of other and
Page 16 of 112
better proof. (Delta Motors Sales Corporation vs Bernardo, 66261-R, May 21, 1981) –
THE TREE.
Secondary Evidence is any evidence other than the document itself. Also known as
Substitutionary Evidence. – THE FRUIT. “an evidence derived from the primary evidence”
K. What is the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?

Reference: Marlon Bacerra vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 204544;
July 3, 2017)
The difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence involves the
relationship of the fact inferred to the facts that constitute the offense. Their difference
does not relate to the probative value of the evidence.
DIRECT EVIDENCE proves a challenged fact without drawing any inference.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, on the other hand, "indirectly proves a fact in issue,

such that the fact finder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence.
L. Differentiate positive from negative evidence.
Positive evidence – when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts does
exist or than a certain event happened.
- Evidence that affirms the occurrence of an event or existence of a fact, as when a

witness declares that there was no fight which took place.
EFFECTS: Positive evidence would be in support of the claim of the person who is
presenting positive evidence.
Ex: A killed B. The witness testified that A killed B.
- Positive evidence has greater probative value because a witness will testify that
the certain event happened instead of testifying that a certain event did not
happen.
- If there is an averment, you are telling that a certain event happened.
Negative evidence – when the witness states that an event did not occur or that the state
of facts alleged to exist does not actually exist.
- When the evidence denies the occurrence of an event or existence of a fact, as

when the accused presents witnesses who testify that the accused was at their
party when the crime was committed. Denials and alibi are negative evidences.
- Lesser probative value
- You are telling that a certain event did not happen
Page 17 of 112
Ex: The witness testified that A did not kill B in so far as the evidence of the other party
is concerned (the other witness testified that A killed B).
The general rule is that positive evidence prevails over negative evidence, or that a
positive assertion is given more weight over a plain denial.
A denial is a negative evidence. It is considered by jurisprudence to be a very weak form

of defense and can never overcome an affirmative or positive testimony particularly when
it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. (People vs Mendoza, 450 SCRA 328,
January 21, 2005)
M. What is the difference between a competent and a credible piece of

evidence?
COMPETENT EVIDENCE pertains to an evidence not excluded by the rules, law or

constitution;
while CREDIBLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE pertains to a convincing evidence.
The greater the probative value, the more credible it is.
Credibility of the evidence = it is the degree of its proximity to the truth. Therefore, if closer
to the truth, it is more credible.
prima facie
AA AO
kinds of
Page 18 of 112
Admissibility
I
III. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
A. What is admissibility of evidence?

① ②
Relevancy + competency of evidence = ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.
The rule on admissibility of evidence is that evidence is admissible when it is relevant to

the issue AND is not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these rules. (Section 3, Rule
128, Rules of Court)
B. What are the kinds of admissibility?
The kinds of admissibility are as follows:
1. CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY - Where the evidence at the time of its offer

appears to be immaterial or irrelevant, unless it is connected with other facts to be
subsequently proved, such evidence may be received on condition that the other
immaterial
facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence already given will be
stricken out. irrelevant
The court will only consider the evidence upon the happening of an event.
Ex: Case of reckless imprudence, X ran over a pedestrian. In court the prosecution
asks X about the color of his hair. Defense lawyer will object that the question is
irrelevant. If the prosecutor will say, we will show the relevance (e.g. color blind)
later on. Then, you can allow the question CONDITIONALLY. So, later on, if
prosecution is not able to prove the relevance of the question, then exclude that
portion of testimony from the record.
Ex: Like in Photocopy, if a witness is going to testify on a photocopy of a document,

and the opposing counsel would question the identification of the photocopy
because it is not an original copy, you can allow the questions CONDITIONALLY. r
Like conditioned on the presentation of the original document later on. If the
original document was not presented, you can also exclude the testimony from the
record.
/ more
2. MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY - Where the evidence is relevant and competent for
two or more purposes, such evidence should be admitted for any or all purposes two
for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of law for its
admissibility therefore.
purpose
One piece of evidence must be admitted for several purposes so that in case it will
not be admitted for one purpose, it will not affect the other purposes.
① nee
Example: Oral statement of a dying person may be treated as a dying declaration s
if such person dies, otherwise it will be considered as part of res gestae.
of
sale
deed
②
pro !%¥sniTwpÉty
Homicide kill ins the ¥
③ prove
or
-
criminal
intent
posses polar
murder me
-
Page 19 of 112
things done transacted
things
Res gestae = Under the Hearsay rule, a court normally refuses to admit as
evidence statements that a witness says he or she heard another person say. The
doctrine of res gestae provided an exception to this rule.
Ex: Present the knife, the length of the blade, the knife has blood, the knife has a
name engraved at the handle. The piece of evidence is the knife. If the court will
look at the knife, they will state that the knife has a 10-inch blade (no need to infer,
factum probans); The knife has blood stains (factum probans); engraved name in
the handle of the knife (factum probans- you are just stating what you are looking
at). Factum probandum = By stating that the knife has a 10-inch blade, the
proposition that you are trying to prove is that it was the knife that was used to
inflict the wound on the victim which has a depth of 5 inches. By stating that the
knife has an engraving at the handle of the knife, the proposition that you are trying Factnm
probandum
to prove is that the knife belongs to the accused. By stating that the knife has a
hyiholhetical
bloodstain, the proposition that you are trying to prove is that the knife was used
to stab the victim and not an animal.
So just one piece of evidence, you are going to offer it for several purposes. You
are going to offer one single evidence to prove several factum probandum (facta teething
probanda).
weight
3. CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY - This doctrine treats upon the right of a party to
or
introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf where the court has admitted the
same kind of evidence (inadmissible evidence) adduced by the adverse party. It is
allowed to answer the inadmissible evidence. indenting Factum
/ There is a defect, and you are able to present evidence only to cure the defect. pro
bans
The defect is the admission of a piece of evidence which would otherwise have
been disallowed.
existence
to
Q: Why is inadmissible evidence allowed to be admitted as evidence? help
A: It is either the opposing counsel or the judge is sleeping during the trial. But it
is always the opposing counsel. That’s why later on, you should pay attention when
prove
the opposing counsel is presenting his witness you should be vigilant, you should
object timely. Because if you don’t object to the presentation of inadmissible
evidence and the judge would just allow it, then that is the reason why inadmissible
L
evidence are admitted. The remedy is curative admissibility.
2 schools of thought when it comes to curative admissibility:
1. English School of Thought where you are allowed to present inadmissible

evidence if you did not object to the presentation of inadmissible evidence.
2. American school of thought where you are required to interpose an objection so
that you will be allowed later on to present your evidence.
interfere
NOTE: We are following AMERICAN SCHOOL OF THOUGHT.
Page 20 of 112
Oral Defamation ,
Ex: X and Z fought. An evidence was presented [recorded private conversation (which
caused the fight)] from X and Z without consent from the Z. So, another video of the fight
has been presented by the other party.
C. What are the two maxims of admissibility of evidence?
1. Axiom of relevancy – none but facts having rational probative value are
admissible.
Components of relevancy:
a. Materiality – whether the evidence is offered upon a matter properly in

issue.
b. Probativeness – the tendency to establish the proposition for which it is
offered as evidence.
Ex: In an action for sum of money based on a promissory note, evidence that
the defendant was misled into signing the note would be rationally relevant but
if fraud was never alleged as a defense, then evidence in this case would be
legally irrelevant or immaterial.
2. Axiom of competency – facts having rational probative value are admissible

unless some specific rule forbids their admission. The rules of exclusion are rules
of exception to the general admissibility of all that is rational and probative.
The evidence is not excluded by the Constitution, the law or rules.
D. What are two requisites of admissibility?
The requisites for the admissibility of evidence are as follows, to wit:
a. It must be relevant to the issue sought to be proved; and

b. It must be competent or not otherwise excluded by the law or these rules.
E. When is evidence considered relevant?
Evidence is considered relevant when the evidence:

Relevant
a. Have such a relation to the fact in issue; and
b. It will induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
F. What is the test of relevancy of evidence?

TEST VALUE
The test of relevancy of evidence is whether an item of evidence will have any value, as
determined by logic and experience, in proving the proposition for which it is offered, or
whether it would reasonably and actually tend to prove or disprove any matter of fact in
issue, or corroborate other relevant evidence. The test is satisfied if there is some logical
Page 21 of 112
connection either directly or by inference between the fact offered and the fact to be
proved. (People of the Philippines vs. Zakaria, GR No. 181042, November 26, 2012)
Section 4, Rule 128. Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-existence. (memorize)
G. When is evidence considered competent?
Evidence is competent when the evidence is not otherwise excluded by the Constitution,
law or by the Rules of Court. (Sec 3, Rule 128, Rules of Court)
COMPETENT
H. What is the difference between the relevancy and competency of evidence?
Reference: Fernando Mancol Jr. vs. DBP (G.R. 204289 dated Nov. 22, 2017)
In relevancy, the evidence must have a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief as
to its existence or non-existence.
In competency of evidence, the evidence must not be excluded by law or by the rules.
Ex: of what is competent but irrelevant: When you frisk X with probable cause and you
found a sachet of shabu and 1 ballpen. You charge him for illegal possession of drugs.
What is the relevance of the ballpen if he will offer it in evidence? NONE. reasonable
Ex: of what might be relevant but not competent. When you frisk X without probable cause
ground
and you found a sachet of shabu and 1 ballpen. Is the shabu relevant to the illegal
possession of drugs? YES.
But is it competent? NO, because of the way that you obtained it. It is excluded, it is
inadmissible. It is incompetent.
I. What is the difference between the admissibility and weight of evidence? of

evil
Admissibility refers to the piece of evidence so that it will be considered by the court.
piece fanqgapin
para LOUVT
While weight of evidence refers to the probative value. probative is the ng
value
probability of evidence
If you object to the admissibility of evidence, it’s either it’s irrelevant or incompetent. You to
reach
do not object because it has lesser probative value.
its proof
The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence
while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to
convince and persuade.
The admissibility of a particular item of evidence has to do with whether it meets the
various tests by which its reliability is to be determined, so as to be considered with other
evidence admitted in the case in arriving at a decision as to the truth
Page 22 of 112
while the weight of evidence is not determined mathematically by the numerical

superiority of the witnesses testifying to a given fact, but depends upon its practical effect
in inducing belief on the part of the judge trying the case.
Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be

considered at all.
Weight of evidence, on the other hand, refers to the question of whether the admitted Pino prove
evidence proves an issue. (Fernando Mancol Jr. vs. DBP, G.R. No. 204289, November ba hug
22, 2017) in
/ Fact
J. What are rules of exclusion in general? issue
Exclusion by Certain Rules of Evidence

-
1. The rule excluding secondary evidence when the primary or best evidence is
available;
2. The rule excluding hearsay evidence;
-
3. The rule excluding privilege communications.
K. What is the Exclusionary Rule? (Pp. vs. Sapla June 2020)
Anything that would exclude the admission of other pieces of evidence. ex: original
document rule
Otherwise known as the exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, this
constitutional provision originated from Stonehill v. Diokno.
This rule prohibits the issuance of general warrants that encourage law enforcers to go
on fishing expeditions. Evidence obtained through unlawful seizures should be excluded
as evidence because it is "the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional
injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures."
Exclusionary Rule Principle - the principle which mandates that evidence obtained from
an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive investigation, or in violation of a
particular law, must be excluded from the trial and will not be admitted as evidence.
L. Give 5 rules of exclusion provided in substantive laws.
1. Those obtained in violation of the Anti-Wire Tapping Law (R.A. No. 4200);
2. Those obtained in violation of the Human Securities Act (R.A. No. 9372); Protect people Act
from
the
3. Evidence is not admissible if obtained in violation of Law on Secrecy of Bank
Deposits (R.A. No. 1405, as amended by PD 1792)
↳ .wvisr ¥
4. Evidence in case of violation of the Sexual Shield Abuse Rule.
5. Child witness law. (R.A. No. 7610) unlawful
↳ evidence to disclose
◦
f- specific
instances
of sexual victim
conduct by the
Page 23 of 112
M. Give 5 rules of exclusion found in procedural laws aside from the Rules of
Court.
1. Evidence obtained in violation of Section 2, Article III of the Constitution on search

and seizure;
2. Evidence obtained in violation of Section 3, Article III of the Constitution on the
right to privacy of communication and correspondence;
3. Evidence obtained in violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution in case
of arrest and custodial investigation;
4. Evidence obtained in violation of Section 17, Article III of the Constitution on the
right of the person against self-incrimination;
5. Object evidence in violation of the Chain of Custody Rule;
N. Enumerate (only) the rules of exclusion found in the Rules of Court.
=1.2. Documentary evidence in violation of the Best Evidence Rule;

Evidence in violation of the Parol Evidence Rule;
3. Testimonial evidence obtained in violation of Sections 21, 22, 23, and 24 of Rule
130 on disqualified witnesses;
4. Testimonial evidence in violation of Hearsay Evidence Rule;
5. Evidence in violation of the Opinion Rule;
Course Objective: For you to be able to analyze in this manner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92Dz2sgtBPc
NAOL!
IV. PROOF AND QUANTUM OF PROOF
A. When is proof or evidence necessary?
Proof or Evidence is necessary to ascertain in a judicial proceeding the truth

respecting a matter of fact. (Rules of Court, Rule 128 Sec. 1)
- Proof is necessary when there is factum probandum. While evidence is

necessary if the issue involves a question of fact.
- You don’t have to present evidence if the fact that you would want to prove
may be taken judicial notice of.
B. Proof or evidence not necessary if there are:
1. Facts which are the subject of judicial notice (Rule 129, Secs. 1-3)
2. Facts which are admitted (Rule 129, Sec. 4)
3. Matters which are not specifically denied in the answer (Rule 8, Sec. 10)
4. Facts which are legally presumed (Rule 131, Sec. 2-3)
5. Those which are the subject of an Agreement, the statement of facts between
①
the parties (Rule 30, Sec. 5)
B.1. Matters of Judicial notice
1. What is judicial notice? - EMPHASIS
Rule 129, Sec. 1
What is known need not to be proved.
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take
and act on without proof because they already know them. (Pp v. Tundag, G.R. Nos.
135895- 96, Oct. 12, 2000)
2. When is judicial notice mandatory? (Rule 129, Sec. 1) -

EMPHASIS
A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of:
E-
1. the existence and territorial extent of states,
No need to prove that the Philippines exists

FLAGS
2. their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality,
3. the law of nations,
4. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,
5. the political constitution and history of the Philippines,
6. the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments (CA and SC)
of the national government of the Philippines,
7. the laws of nature,
8. the measure of time, and
9. the geographical divisions. (as a whole, not in particular)
The road coming from Trinidad to Baguio at the area of Supreme Hotel, can
I take judicial notice, the fact that it is ascending? No
Page 25 of 112
3. When is judicial notice discretionary? (ROC, Rule 129 Sec. 2) -

EMPHASIS
A court may take judicial notice of:
1. matters which are of public knowledge, or
Requisites:
a. The matter must be one of common (must be known by the general

population) knowledge
b. The matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubt.
c. The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of the court.
Ex: The Road in Lion’s Head, Kennon Road is steep.
2. matters which are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or
Requisites:
3. matters which are ought to be known to all judges because of their judicial
functions.
4. What are the rules anent judicial notice of court proceedings and
judgments? - EMPHASIS
As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial knowledge of the
contents of the record of other cases, in the adjudication of cases pending before
them, even though the trial judge in fact knows or remembers the contents thereof,
or even when said other cases have been heard or are pending in the same court
and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are really
pending before the same judge. (Municipal Council vs. Colegio de San Jose, et al.,
G.R. No. L-45460; 31 C.J.S. 623- 624; cited in p. 25, Evidence, Second Ed.; R.J.
Francisco)
Exception:
1. A court will take judicial notice of its own acts and records in the same case,
2. of facts established in prior proceedings in the same case,
3. of the authenticity of its own records of another case between the same
parties,
4. of the files of related cases in the same court, and
5. of public records on file in the same court.
6. In addition judicial notice will be taken of the record, pleadings or judgment
of a case in another court between the same parties or involving one of the
same parties, -
7. as well as of the record of another case between different parties in the same
court.
8. Judicial notice will also be taken of court personnel. (Paras, Rules of Court
Annotated, Vol. 4, 1991 Ed., p. 52.)
5. May municipal ordinances be taken judicial notice of? -

EMPHASIS
Yes, in MTCs. Inferior courts should take mandatory judicial notice of municipal or
city ordinance in force in their territorial jurisdiction. (2 Regalado, supra at 833)
Page 26 of 112
RTC may not take judicial notice approved by municipalities under their territorial
jurisdiction. Except:
1. So required by law (City of Manila v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-26053, February 21,
1967)
2. On appeal to it from the inferior court in which the latter took judicial notice.
(U.S. v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-9699, August 26, 1915)
6. May judicial notice be taken of a foreign judgment? - EMPHASIS
No. Foreign judgment do not prove themselves nor can a court take judicial notice
on them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved. (Garcia-Recio v.
Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001)
B. 2. Presumptions juris et de jure
1. What is a presumption?
Is a rule of law directing that if a party of certain facts at a trial or hearing, the fact
finder must also accept an additional fact as proven unless sufficient evidence is
introduce intending to rebut the presumed fact. (29 Am Jur 2d s 181)
2. What are the kinds of presumptions? - EMPHASIS
Presumptions are classified into presumptions of law and presumptions of fact.
1. Presumption of law – are found in the law and constitution. This is

mandatory.
2. Presumption of Fact – it is a deduction which reason draws from facts

proved without an express direction from the law to that effect. This is not a
mandatory deduction. (Riano, Evidence, p. 106-107)
NOTE:
RULE 131. Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. – The following are instances

of conclusive presumptions:
a) ESTOPPEL IN PAIS - Whenever a party has, by his or her own declaration,

act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a
particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he or she cannot, in any
litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to
falsify it; and
b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his or her landlord at the time
of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
(2a)
3. What is the effect of a presumption? Reference: Modesto

Mabunga vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 142039; May 27, 2004
A presumption has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the party who would
be disadvantaged by a finding of the presumed fact. The presumption controls
decision on the presumed fact unless there is counterproof that the presumed fact
is not so. (Modesto Mabunga vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. No. 142039 May
27, 2004)
Page 27 of 112
In sum, presumptions shift the burden of producing evidence with regard to the
presumed fact.
NOTE: In presumptions, you will need to present the basis, that is why it is not
included in Rule 129 (What need not be proved).
4. What is the difference between a presumption and a conclusion?

- EMPHASIS
“Presumption” in the legal sense refers to a conclusion an individual makes based

on a set of facts, coupled with his logic and reasoning, as well as the laws relevant
to the case. In other words, a presumption is a rule that allows a court to assume
a fact is true unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.
Conclusion on the other hand is the judgment or decision reached by

reasoning.
5. What is the difference between a presumption and an inference?
The difference between a presumption and an inference is that:
PRESUMPTION INFERENCE
an absolute requirement that the jury allows a jury to ignore the conclusion
must follow in a criminal case that is normally drawn with respect to an
inference.
has a mandatory effect in criminal has very little effect because its
cases conclusion is so weak.
deduction of fact that a jury “must” draw has less strength and a jury has the
if the first fact on which it is based is ability to draw the deduction or to refuse
proved, but it is not required to make the to draw the deduction with respect to an
deduction in a criminal case inference in a criminal case.
A jury has the discretion not to follow a A jury is required to follow an inference
presumption even if the preliminary in a criminal case
fact has been proven.
DISCUSSION:
There is a knife and there is a wound. The knife is pointed, double bladed
and 10 inches long. The wound is an incision (clean cut), and is about 4
inches deep. If I look at the knife, that’s your evidence, I will derive from the
knife an evidentiary fact:
1. The blade is 10 inches long, and double sided and a pointed edge (factum
probans). Putting them together and try to see if it is possible that the knife
was used to inflict that incision (factum probandum). By experience, if the
knife is sharp and double edged and 10 inches, then the wound inflicted
would be clean cut with that 4-inch depth.
(presumption of fact = a presumption based on the facts that you gathered

from that piece of evidence)
There’s a picture where 2 vehicles are in one lane. (factum probans):
1. The vehicle of the victim is on the correct lane;

2. The vehicle of the accused is on the lane of the private complainant (the
car is in the wrong lane = inference). Why do I say that that lane is right
and wrong for someone? Because according to the traffic law, you should
Page 28 of 112
be on the right lane. My factum probandum is that the accused violated a

rule. If I correlate the factum probans with the existing rule, you are
making a presumption of law.
Inference is considered a presumption. Inference can ripen into conclusion,

when an inference is combined with other inferences which will establish a
certain presumption, you can make a conclusion.
When we talk about conclusive presumptions, we are talking about

presumptions of law.
An inference can be a presumption of fact. Presumption is mandatory like if

you were given a set of facts then there is no other conclusion than what is
provided by the Rule. That is why you have your rebuttable presumptions
and your conclusive presumptions.
What is the effect if a disputable presumption has not been disputed? It shall
be enough to prove a matter of fact.
If you have established that it was the knife that was used to stab the victim
will it cause the shifting of the burden of evidence? Yes, it will shift
The presumption of fact, what effect does it have on the burden of evidence?
has no effect.
In coming up with the presumption of facts, the party has already satisfied its
burden of evidence. From the evidence presented by the party, the judge was
able to incur another fact. (inference of the judge= it was the knife that was
used to inflict the wound) Now, it’s up to the other party to disprove it. So
there’s a shifting of burden of evidence.
When you say shifting of burden of evidence, you have to disprove something
which has been proven. After the party has presented his evidence and the
party has prima facie case, then if the other party will not present evidence,
that prima facie case is sufficient as a basis for granting the claim for the party
who presented it.
Prima facie evidence is what will create a prima facie case. Does it
necessarily shift the burden of evidence? Yes, the burden of evidence is
shifted but only to contradict the presumption that has been established. In a
civil case, the quantum of evidence needed is preponderance of evidence.
6. What are presumptions juris et de jure? Give ten examples.
Presumption Juris et de jure refers to conclusive presumptions of law which cannot

be rebutted by evidence. It is also known as conclusive presumption or irrebuttable
presumption. (retrieved, uslegal.com)
Examples are as follows:
1. Estoppel to deny validity of sale as when the wife, in collusion with the
husband, concealed her true status induce her parents to believe she is
single and to a property which in truth is conjugal. The husband cannot deny
the validity of the deed
2. The heirs who represented the minors in a suit for partition cannot impugn
the validity of the judgment for lack of proper authorization
3. Jurisdiction by estoppel
Page 29 of 112
4. Agency/Partnership by estoppel
5. The relationship is that between parties to an original contract of lease ( not
sublease) involving a real property. The tenant refers to the lessee. What is
deemed conclusive as to the tenant is the ownership of the lessor over
property.
6. A child below the age of criminal responsibility cannot be held legally
responsible for his/her actions and so cannot be convicted of a criminal
offense.
7. The presumption that, in the case of a sex crime, is that a minor is incapable
of providing consent.
8. A man who represents himself to be the true owner in a sale will not be
permitted later to deny the sale after he acquire title thereto.
9. The lessee cannot use his physical possession over the property as basis to
dispossess the lessor of the latter’s ownership. The law seeks to protect
owners of real property from being deprived of their ownership by those in
actual physical possession who are their own lessees.
10. Ignoring law is not an excuse to break the law.
Ex: in agency by estoppel, if you have represented yourself as the agent of

the person, you will no longer be allowed to claim that you are not because there is
always a conclusive presumption that you really are the agent by estoppel.
Before you can draw a conclusive presumption, you need to prove that:
1. The person made another person to believe either intentionally or

deliberately through an act or omission that a certain thing is true and that
other person with that belief, he believed so he did it.
If you are able to prove those and there is no other conclusion that the person
is really an agent. It is a conclusive presumption because of the principle of
estoppel.
So, you have a set of facts and you apply a certain principle and then you
draw a conclusion.
The principle of estoppel is not a fact which you have observed. It is a

principle; it is a rule. If you combined that with the facts that you have
observed then what you have is the conclusion. That conclusion is a
presumption of law because there is a rule that tells you that if you have a
certain set of facts necessarily, this should be your conclusion
If you have that conclusion in your favor, do you still need to prove that the
person is an agent? NO. So, there is a shifting of the burden of evidence.
What will the person prove? That he is not the agent. But since this is a
conclusive presumption, it will not be allowed to be overturned by any
contrary proof.
In terms of judicial presumptions, there’s shifting of the burden of evidence.

Because the person against whom the presumption exists will now have the
duty to present countervailing evidence/rebuttal evidence.
7. What is the quantum of proof required to rebut a presumption? -

EMPHASIS
GENERAL RULE: Clear and convincing evidence. (Almeda v. Heirs of Almeda,

G.R. No. 194189, September 14, 2017)
Page 30 of 112
EXCEPTION: Proof beyond reasonable doubt to overcome the presumption of

innocence. (Macayan Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015)
NOTE: What you should remember about disputable presumption is the

quantum of evidence that you need to dispute the presumption.
B.3. Judicial Admissions - emphasis
1. What is an admission? - emphasis
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact. (Rule 130 Sec. 27)
2. What is a judicial admission? - emphasis
An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in

the same case. (Rule 129, Sec. 4)
Requisites:
1. There must be an admission by the party whether oral or written

2. It must be made in the course of the proceeding (must be part of the case
itself, you should know the process)
3. It must be made in the same case.
DISCUSSION:
In the example, the admission was made in the answer. And he admitted that
he received the money, that’s why you don’t have to present proof anymore.
The admission came from the defendant (a party), a written admission that
he acknowledges receiving the money and it is done in the course of the
proceeding because the filing of an answer is a necessary step in the
litigation of the case. And it was done in the same case.
In a criminal case, serious physical injuries while they are waiting for the
prosecutor, the judge asked the accused and the complainant if they can still
settle. The accused said “kasla ka met gamin sigsiguru di sinapak da ka’’, the
judge heard that. Is that an oral admission? Yes, he is a party and he made
an oral admission of punching the complainant; But it is not made in the
course of the proceeding because it was made before the formal proceeding
started. Hence, this is not a judicial admission.
NOTE: There are admissions, although done in the course of the proceedings, they
cannot be admitted in evidence. They may be considered judicial admissions but
they are inadmissible because they are prohibited by the rule to be presented as
evidence. These are admissions made in connection with the court annex
mediation, judicial dispute resolution because they are competent. Admissions
made in the court of a compromise agreement would not be admissible.
3. Give 5 examples of judicial admissions?
1. The genuineness and due execution of an actionable document copied or

attached to a pleading, when the other party fails to specifically deny under
oath (Rule 8, Section 8)
2. Material allegations in the complaint, when the other party fails to specifically
deny it (Rule 8, Section 11)
Page 31 of 112
3. Admissions in superseded pleadings, when offered in evidence (Rule 10,

Section 8)
4. Act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact (Rule 130, Section
26)
5. Implied admission of guilt in an offer of compromise by the accused in
criminal cases, except quasi-offenses and those allowed by law to be
compromised (Rule 130, Section 27)
4. What is the rule for the admissibility of an admission made during

the pre-trial?
The admissions must be in writing and signed by the accused and counsel for it to
be binding.
Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the admissions. Pre-trial
admission in civil cases is one the instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided
for under Section 7, Rule 18, which mandates that the contents of the pre-trial order
shall control the subsequent course of the action, thereby, defining and limiting the
issues to be tried. Under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a judicial
admission requires no proof (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v, BPI/MS Insurance
Corporation [2015])
Ex: When the witness would testify and upon hearing the testimony of the
witness, the opposing counsel would make an offer if they can stipulate the
testimony of the witness then, he will no longer present the witness (this is
after pre-trial).
In the pre-trial, we are only talking about the accused. So, if we are talking
about the private complainant during the pretrial, and he did not sign the pre-
trial, then it’s okay because it will be binding upon him. What is required is
only for the accused.
5. May an admission made by counsel in open court be taken

against his client?
GENERAL RULE: Yes, the client is bound by the mistakes arising from negligence
of his own counsel. (Juani v. Alarcon, G.R. No. 166849, September 5, 2006, 501
SCRA 135, 153; Uy v. Adriano, G.R. No. 159098, October 27, 2006, 505 SCRA 625,
648-649.)
EXCEPTION: The only exception to this rule is, as the Court of Appeals itself cited
in its decision, when the negligence is so gross that the client is deprived of his day
in court.
6. What is the effect of an admission made by a party in:
a. his judicial affidavit which is already part of the record of the

case if he did not testify?
The party is still bound by the admission and is conclusive as to him. (Silot v. De La
Rosa, G.R. No. 159240 February 4, 2008).
The judicial affidavit is considered a direct testimony of the accused. It is part of the
proceeding.
Page 32 of 112
b. His pleading if the same was thereafter amended?
Admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the

pleader, and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended
pleading shall be deemed waived. (Rule 11, Sec. 8)
c. His pleading which he later withdrew?
An admission that has subsequently been withdrawn such as a plea of guilty

followed by a plea of not guilty cannot be used as an admission in either a criminal
or civil case. It is considered an unreliable admission that has a potentially
prejudicial effect on the opportunity of the defendant to get a fair trial.
d. His sworn statement after a motion to discharge him as a state

witness is denied?
If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his
sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence. (Rule 119, Sec. 17)
e. His sworn statement as a state witness after he refused to

testify?
If the state witness refuses or fails to testify, sworn statement and any other
testimony given shall not be admissible in evidence. (R.A. No. 6981)
f. Admissions made in the discovery processes
Rule 26: for the purpose of the pending action only and shall not constitute an
admission in any other proceeding
7. When may an offer of compromise be considered an admission?
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or

those allowed by law to be compromised, AN OFFER OF COMPROMISE BY THE
ACCUSED MAY BE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE AS AN IMPLIED ADMISSION OF
GUILT. (Rule 130, Sec. 27)
8. How may a judicial admission be contradicted?
A judicial admission may be contradicted if there is a showing that the admission

had been made through palpable mistake, or no admission was in fact made.
(People v. Genosa, Arroyo, Jr. v. Taduran, Carandang v. Court of Appeals)
9. Who may contradict a judicial admission?
The party who made the admission if there is a showing that it was made thru
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made (Sps. Manzanilla v.
Waterfields Industries Corporation [2014])
10. May the admission of one accused on the witness stand be taken
against his co-accused?
No. The general rule that the admission of an accused may be given in evidence
against him but that it is not competent evidence against his co-accused. (People v.
Manatad, G.R. No. 70091 December 29, 1986)
Page 33 of 112
11. May an admission in a counter-affidavit submitted during a

preliminary investigation and which is attached to the record be
admitted in evidence?
Yes. A counter-affidavit voluntarily presented by the accused during the preliminary

investigation may be used as evidence against the affiant. (Ladiana v. People, G.R.
No. 144293, December 4, 2002)
12. What is the effect of the retraction or recantation of a witness as

to admissions already made?
The retraction is an afterthought which should not be given probative value. It would
be a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before the court of justice simply
because the witness who has given it later on changed his mind for one reason or
another. (People v. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 147662-63, 15 August 2003)
B.4. Judicial Confessions
1. What is a confession?
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of

any offense necessarily included therein. (Rule 130, Sec. 33)
2. How may a judicial confession be retracted?
- MISSING
3. What are interlocking confessions?
Extra-judicial confessions independently made without collusion which are identical

with each other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on
record are admissible, as circumstantial evidence, against the person implicated to
show the probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime.
[People v. Molleda, 86 SCRA 667, 701 (1978)]
B. 5. Unrebutted presumptions juris tantum
1. What are presumptions juris tantum? Give twenty examples. -

EMPHASIS
Disputable presumptions are presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but

may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. (Rule 131, Sec. 3)
1. That a person is innocent of a crime or wrong;

2. That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
3. That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act;
4. That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
5. That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced;
6. That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
7. That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter;
8. That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
9. That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one
is produced;
Page 34 of 112
10. That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
which a person possess, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by
him;
11. That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the
money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing
accordingly;
12. That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to
it;
13. That official duty has been regularly performed;
14. That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere,
was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
15. That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court
and passed upon by it; and in like manner that all matters within an issue
raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators
and passed upon by them;
16. That private transactions have been fair and regular;
17. That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
18. That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
19. That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient
consideration;
20. That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the
instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated;
21. That a writing is truly dated;
22. That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of
the mail;
23. That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the
absentee still lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those
of succession.
C. What is “burden of proof”? Is it the same as “burden of evidence”?
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by
law. (Section 1, Rule 131, Rules of Court)
Burden of evidence, on the other hand is the logical necessity which rest upon a
party at any particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor
or to overthrow one created against him.
The distinction between burden of proof and burden of evidence are as follows:
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence

The burden of proof does not shift as it Burden of evidence shifts from party to
remains throughout the trial with the party depending on the exigencies of
party upon whom it is imposed. the case in the course of the trial.
(Bautista, et al. v. Sarmiento, et. al., L-
45137, September 23, 1985)
Burden of proof is generally Burden of evidence is generally
determined by the pleadings filed by determined by the developments in the
the party. trial, or by the provisions of substantive
law or procedural rules which may
relieve the party from presenting
evidence of fact
alleged.
Page 35 of 112
D. Who has the “burden of proof” in a case?
Burden of proof shall be determined as follows:
1. In CRIMINAL CASES, the burden of proof lies in the party prosecution;
2. In CIVIL CASES, the burden of proof lies in the party who substantially
asserts the affirmative allegations;
3. In ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS, the burden of proof lies on the party who
would be defeated if no evidence were given on either side.
E. What is “quantum of proof”?
Quantum of proof is that amount of proof required to overturn a legal

presumption.
F. What are the different quanta of proof in evidence?
The different quanta of proof in evidence are:
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

2. Clear and convincing evidence
3. Preponderance of evidence
4. Substantial evidence
5. Quantum of evidence needed in preliminary evidence
6. Lower than substantial evidence- needed in preliminary investigations
(Jinggoy case)
G. Define:
a. proof beyond reasonable doubt
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is that degree of proof which after an investigation
of the whole record produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind of the
culpability of a person. (People vs Beltran, L-31860, November 29, 1974; 61 SCRA
255)
That degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (Sec 2,

Rule 133, Rules of Court)
b. preponderance of evidence
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate

evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term
"greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence."
Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability
of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as it is worthier of
belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. (Tan vs. Hosana, G.R. No.
190846, February 3, 2016)
c. substantial evidence
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
Page 36 of 112
conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine

otherwise. (Miro vs. Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 172532 172544-45, November 20, 2013)
d. clear and convincing evidence montane

Clear and convincing proof is than mere preponderance, but not to extent of such
certainty as is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. (Vicente vs.
Confesor, G.R. No. 102358, November 19, 1992)
H. Give two instances when the quantum of proof required is clear and
convincing evidence.
Clear and convincing evidence is required in the following instances:
1. Contempt proceedings
It has been said that the burden of proof in a civil contempt proceeding lies
somewhere between the criminal "reasonable doubt" burden and the
civil "fair preponderance" burden. (Oca vs. Custodio, G.R. No. 199825,
July 26, 2017)
2. Disproving allegation of fraud
As to fraud, the rule is that he who alleges fraud or mistake affecting a

transaction must substantiate his allegation, since it is presumed that a
person takes ordinary care of his concerns and that private transactions have
been fair and regular. The Court has stressed time and again that allegations
must be proven by sufficient evidence because mere allegation is definitely
not evidence. Moreover, fraud is not presumed – it must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence. (Ramos vs. Obispo, G.R. No. 193804, February
27, 2013)
I. What is the quantum of proof in contempt proceedings? (Webb vs.

Gatdula et al. G.R. 194469 Jan 10 2020)
A difference between criminal and civil contempt also lies in the determination of the
burden of proof. In criminal contempt proceedings, the contemnor is “presumed
innocent and the burden is on the prosecution to prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt.”
In civil contempt proceedings, no presumption exists, “although the burden of proof

is on the complainant, and while the proof need not be beyond reasonable doubt, it
must amount to more than a mere preponderance of evidence.”
xxx
However, this Court has clarified that intent is a necessary element only in criminal
contempt cases.
Because the purpose of civil contempt proceeding is remedial and not punitive,
intent is immaterial.
Hence, good faith or lack of intent to violate the court’s order is not a defense in civil
contempt.
Here, respondents were charged with indirect contempt on two (2) grounds under
the Rules of Court:
Page 37 of 112
1. “disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of

a court”; and
2. “improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or
degrade the administration of justice[.]”
J. What is the quantum of proof in administrative cases against lawyers?
The Court has repeatedly stressed that in administrative complaints for disbarment
and suspension against lawyers, the required quantum of proof is clear and
preponderant evidence.
Preponderance of evidence means evidence, which is of greater weight, or more

convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.
The onus probandi lies on the complainant, who is duty-bound to prove the veracity
of the allegations in his complaint by a preponderance of evidence. (Anacin
v.Salonga, A.C N. 876, January 8, 2020)
K. What is the quantum of proof in preliminary investigations? Reference:

Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. Nos.
212140 -41 January 21, 2015)
The quantum of evidence now required in preliminary investigation is such

evidence sufficient to "engender a well-founded belief" as to the fact of the
commission of a crime and the respondent's probable guilt thereof. (Senator
Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41,
January 21, 2015)
L. When may a civil action be decided not on the basis of preponderance

of evidence?
A civil action may be decided not on the basis of preponderance of evidence when
the case is a prima facie case.
M. What is a prima facie case? Reference: Prima facie case: Fe J. Bautista

vs. Hon. Malcolm Sarmiento (G.R. No. L-45137 dated September 23,
1985)
Prima facie case is that amount of evidence which would be sufficient to counter-
balance the general presumption of innocence, and warrant a conviction, if not
countered and controlled by evidence tending to contradict it, and render it
improbable, or to prove other facts inconsistent with it, and the establishment of a
prima facie case does not take away the presumption of innocence which may in
the opinion of the jury be such as to rebut and control it.
N. What is the required quantum of proof in overcoming a prima facie

case?
The required quantum of proof in overcoming a prima facie case is an equipoise of

evidence as stated in the case of Fe J. Bautista vs. Hon. Malcolm Sarmiento:
A prima facie case need not be countered by a preponderance of evidence nor by

evidence of greater weight. Defendant's evidence which equalizes the weight of
plaintiff's evidence or puts the case in equipoise is sufficient. As a result, plaintiff will
have to go forward with the proof.
Page 38 of 112
Should it happen that at the trial, the weight of evidence is equally balanced or at
equilibrium and presumptions operate against plaintiff who has the burden of proof,
he cannot prevail.
O. What is equipoise of evidence?
An equipoise of evidence is that evidence where the defendant's evidence equalizes

with the weight of plaintiff's evidence, hence puts the case in equipoise.
V. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
A. What are the requisites so that a piece of evidence will be considered

by the courts?
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the
law of these rules. (Rule 128 Sec. 3)
Further, Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that "the court shall
consider no evidence which has not been formally offered."
B. What is Offer of Evidence?
Offer of evidence means that the offering party shall inform the court of the purpose
of introducing its exhibits into evidence, to assist the court in ruling on their
admissibility in case the adverse party objects. Without a formal offer of evidence,
courts cannot take notice of this evidence even if this has been previously marked
and identified. (Star Two (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Ko, G.R. No. 185454, March 23, 2011,
646 SCRA 371, 375-376)
Example: In a case for collection of sum of money, “Exhibit A”, the document
evidence is a contract of lease, and its purpose would be to prove that the
respondent and the plaintiff entered into a contract of lease for a period of one
year with a monthly rental of P10,000.
C. When may a court consider evidence which was not formally offered?
The cases of People v. Napat-a, People v. Mate, and The Heirs of Romana Saves,
et al. v. The Heirs of Escolastico Saves, et al., to cite a few, enumerated the
requirements so that evidence, not previously offered, can be admitted, namely:
1. The evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded;
and
2. The evidence must have been incorporated in the records of the case.
Example: In a complaint for specific performance where A loaned from B to finance

its importation of motorcycle. To secure payment of all existing and future
obligations of A to B, C executed a surety agreement with B with limited liability of
P50M. A failed to pay its obligation with B despite demand so B filed a complaint for
specific performance. The RTC directed the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment against all the properties of A and C as may be sufficient to satisfy B’s
principal claim. C filed a motion to dismiss alleging that B’s claim has already been
paid. Also, C filed a Motion to Set Case for Hearing for Reception of Evidence. RTC
dismissed the case against C stating that there was sufficient evidence to prove that
C paid an amount more than the limit provided under the Surety Agreement. B
argued that the trial court should not have relied on the documents presented by C
as they were not formally offered in evidence. Thus, they filed a motion for
reconsideration.
Applying the rule wherein the court may consider evidence which was not formally
offered can be admitted but first the evidence must have been duly identified by
testimony duly recorded and, second, the evidence must have been incorporated in
the records of the case, the subject pieces of evidence were presented in support
of respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the denial of their motion to dismiss.
A hearing was set for the reception of their evidence, but petitioner failed to attend
the same. The pieces of evidence were thus identified, marked in evidence, and
Page 40 of 112
incorporated in the records of the case. Clearly, the trial court correctly admitted and
considered the evidence of respondents warranting the dismissal of their case. (Star
Two v. Howard Ko; G.R. No. 185454, March 23, 2011)
Furthermore, the rule has no application where the court takes judicial notice of
adjudicative facts pursuant to Section 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court; or where
the court relies on judicial admissions or draws inferences from such judicial
admissions within the context of Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court; or where
the trial court, in judging the demeanor of witnesses, determines their credibility
even without the offer of the demeanor as evidence. (Emeritu Barut v. People of the
Philippines; G.R. No. 167454, September 24, 2014)
D. What are the reasons why evidence must be offered? - EMPHASIS
The Rules of Court provides that ‘the court shall consider no evidence which has
not been formally offered.’ A formal offer is necessary because:
1. Judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only
and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial;
2. Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for
which the proponent is presenting the evidence;
3. It allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its
admissibility; and
4. It facilitates review as the appellate court will not be required to review
documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court. (Heirs of Pedro Pasag
v. Parocha; G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 410)
The rule on formal offer of evidence is intertwined with the constitutional guarantee
of due process. Parties must be given the opportunity to review the evidence
submitted against them and take the necessary actions to secure their case. Hence,
any document or object that was marked for identification is not evidence unless it
was "formally offered and the opposing counsel was given an opportunity to object
to it or cross-examine the witness called upon to prove or identify it."
The Rules of Court provides that "the court shall consider no evidence which has
not been formally offered." A formal offer is necessary because judges are
mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the
evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its function is to enable the trial judge to
know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence.
On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object
to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will not be
required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court. (Republic
of the Philippines v. Fe Roa Gimenez and Ignacio Gimenez; G.R. No. 174673,
January 11, 2016)
E. Why must the purpose of the presentation of the evidence be included

in the offer?
Without a formal offer of evidence, and hence without a disclosure of its purpose, it
cannot be determined whether it is admissible or not. This is so because it is the
intended purpose of a piece of evidence which determines what rule of
evidence will apply for its admissibility. (Evidence: Basic Principles and Selected
Problems, Justice Benipayo, p. 98)
Page 41 of 112
F. May a piece of evidence be considered by the court for purposes not

indicated in the offer? (di sa pang-iinsulto pero para magkaintindihan
tayo  : a document is offered to prove points 1 and 2. May it be
considered by the Court to prove point 3?)
No. Evidence submitted for one purpose may not be considered for any other
purpose. (People v. Diano; 66 O.G. 6405) The purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified otherwise the adverse party cannot interpose the proper
objection.
G. What is authentication of evidence?
Authentication of evidence is when a witness positively testifies that a document

presented as evidence is genuine and has been duly executed or that the
document is neither spurious nor counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under
duress. (Rodriguez v. YOHDC; G.R. No. 199451, August 15, 2018)
Section 19-B, Authentication and Proof of Documentary Evidence.
Do we authenticate testimonial evidence? Authentication is also presumed.
Authentication of evidence - manner of ensuring the court that the

evidence is what it really is.
Presumed – the burden of evidence to show that the evidence is not authentic
belongs to the adverse party.
Documentary evidence – how authenticated.
2 kinds of documentary evidence
1. public documents - self authenticating, because they are already

authenticated by the regularity in their preparation.
a) Written official acts or record of the sovereign authority-

b) Official bodies and tribunals e.g., memorandum circular,
memorandum order
NOTE: An affidavit is NOT a public document.
SC: An affidavit is only public document only up to the notarial

certificate because it was signed by the notary public.
2. Private document - need to authenticate it
Jimenez case
In affidavit, Jurat - considered public document
If the document is acknowledged, there is a presumption that it is genuine
If the document is an affidavit, the only public document is the part notarized
by the lawyer. But as to the contents, the affiant must still be presented for
the purpose of authenticating it.
Page 42 of 112
If a counter affidavit contains several admissions of the accused, the court

will consider it as a private document. *defense lawyers would not present
the accused**the prosecutor will then what?
Section 19. Classes of documents. – For the purpose of their presentation in

evidence, documents are either public or private.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ARE:
a. The written official acts, or records of the sovereign authority, official

bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines,
or of a foreign country;
b. Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
testaments;
c. Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and
conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the
country of source; and
d. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents
required by law to be entered therein.
- The private document submitted has been kept as a public

record because it is required by law. - here we are referring to
the RECORD - e.g., birth certificate from the hospital submitted
to the municipal hall, SALN submitted to the Ombudsman.
Falsification of a public document by private individual -
Falsification of a private document by a private individual
Why are private documents submitted and become public documents

called self-authenticating?
- There is a presumption of regularity in the performance of the person who

recorded it.
Is it mere attachment of the private document to the record?
All other writings are private.
Section 20. Proof of private document[s]. – Before any private document

offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
(a) By anyone who saw the document 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 execution and authenticity.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed
to be.
E.g., demand letter - prove its due execution and authenticity.
Sec 20 (B)-further explained in section 22-opinion of an ordinary witness.
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. – The handwriting of a

person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting
of such person because he or she has seen the person write or has seen
Page 43 of 112
writing purporting to be his or hers upon which the witness has acted or been
charged and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison,
made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine
by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine
to the satisfaction of the judge. (22)
APOSTILLE CONVENTION-
The purpose of the Convention is to abolish the traditional requirement of

legalisation, replacing the often long and costly legalisation process
with the issuance of a single Apostille certificate by a Competent Authority in
the place where the document originates.
FEATURES
An APOSTILLE is a certificate that authenticates the origin of a public

document. It is issued by a country that is party to the Apostille Convention
to be used in another country which is also a party to the Convention.
Article 1 of the Convention provides a number of examples:
documents emanating from an authority or an official connected with the

courts or tribunals of the State, including those emanating from a
a. public prosecutor,
b. a clerk of a court or a process-server;
c. administrative documents;
d. notarial acts; and
e. official certificates which are placed on documents signed by persons
in their private capacity, such as
a. official certificates recording the registration of a document or
b. the fact that it was in existence on a certain date, and
c. notarial authentications of signatures.
NOTE: Court decision and other notarial documents.

Page 44 of 112
*Section 25. WHAT ATTESTATION OF COPY MUST STATE. – Whenever

a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the
attestation must state, in substance, that
1. the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as

the case may be.
2. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer,
if there be any, or if he or she be the clerk of a court having a seal,
under the seal of such court.
Section 20 - PROOF OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT-
1. IF YOU ARE GOING TO PRESENT THE DOCUMENT AS THAT

WHAT IT CLAIMS TO BE, then it is being presented as object
evidence, that is why you don’t have to authenticate it.
2. IF THE PURPOSE IS TO PRESENT THE DOCUMENT AS A

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, there is a need to authenticate it.
Holographic will – private document
Section 21 – Ancient document – private document (more than 30 years

old) but need not be authenticated.
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not

necessary. – Where a private document is more than thirty (30) years old, is
produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and
is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other
evidence of its authenticity need be given.
E.g., Acknowledged document-or notarized-public document- ancient man or

no need to authenticate it.
Section 22. HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING PROVED. – The

handwriting of a person maybe proved by any witness who believes it to be
the handwriting of such person because he or she has seen the person write
or has seen writing purporting to be his or hers upon which the witness has
acted or been charged and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting
of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a
comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or
treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is off ered, or
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (22)
1. Present testimonial evidence.
NOTE: It does not necessarily mean that he saw Juan write as long as he
recognizes the handwriting.
KINDS OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Section 23. Public documents as evidence. – Documents consisting of

entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer
are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public
documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave
rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. (23)
Section 24-Proof of official document.

Section 25-attestation copy
Page 45 of 112
Section 26-irremovable document

Section 27-public record of a public document
Section 28- proof of lack or record- how proven-presenting a certification of
lack of the document
NOTE: If one of the elements is lack of something – it is considered a proof

reasonable doubt – evidence - the burden is shifted to the accused to prove
the existence of a document.
Section 29-parts of a judicial records

Section 29. How judicial record impeached.
– Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer[;]
(b) collusion between the parties[;] or
(c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (29)
E.g.,
A. Foreign judgment if offered in evidence it may be impeached by

questioning the jurisdiction of the court that issued it.
B. As long as there is an agreement on the part of the parties.
Newly discovered evidence
Requisites:
1. Temporal aspect - discovered after the trial

2. Predictive aspect - it would not have been produced despite the
diligent efforts.
Section 30. PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS. – Every instrument duly

acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented
in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being
prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved.
(30)
How proven? Acknowledgement by the notary public. Present the document

itself.
Section 31 – GENERAL RULE: alterations in the document not accepted.
Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. – The party producing

a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been
altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must
account for the alteration.
He or she may show that the alteration was made by another, without his or
her concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it,
or was otherwise properly or innocently made, or that the alteration did not
change the meaning or language of the instrument. If he or she fails to do
that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence. (31a)
SECTION 31 - APPLIES TO BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DOCUMENT.

In presenting private or public document with alterations it should be
COUNTERSIGNED.
Page 46 of 112
Section 32-Section 32. Seal. – There shall be no difference between

SEALED AND UNSEALED private documents insofar as their admissibility
as evidence is concerned. (32)
Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. –

Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as
evidence, UNLESS accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino.
To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to
have such translation prepared before trial. (33)
For foreign languages- the translator should be agreed upon by the parties.
Different quanta of evidence

Clear and convincing evidence.
Note: the court has the control over the proceedings.
Evidence on motion is not evidence in chief - is not found on the record,

used to prove your motion.
H. Who is a sponsor in evidence?
The sponsor in evidence is the person who authenticates the evidence being
presented in court.
I. What is an objection?
It is an argument or reasons presented against an act of the adverse party or his

counsel, or against the determination by the court in the course of the trial.
(Philippine Legal Encyclopedia, Jose Agaton Sibal, 1998 Ed., p. 635)
Example: Case in violation to RA9262 VAWC sec. 5 (a), the offered

documentary evidence marked as Exhibit A was a photocopy of Medical
Certificate issued by Dr. Benito Gonzaga, MHO, BGH, Baguio City dated June
8, 2021. Admits the existence and authenticity of said exhibit, but objects to the
purpose for which it was offered for being irrelevant and misleading. The said
Medical Certificate was not issued by an authorized government examining
physician as required by law. Also, the testimony of the witness is bereft of any
indication where she had positively identified said document during her direct
testimony.
J. When should an objection be made in the case of:
1. testimonial evidence (2 instances dapat  )
In the case of testimonial evidence, the objection must be made:
1. When the objectionable question is asked; OR

2. After the answer is given if the objectionable features become apparent
only by reason of such answer, otherwise the objection is waived and such
evidence will form part of the records of the case as competent and complete
evidence and all parties are thus amenable to any favorable or unfavorable
effects resulting from the evidence. [Maunlad Savings & Loan Assoc., Inc. v.
CA, 399 Phil. 590 (2000)].
Page 47 of 112
2. documentary evidence
Objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally

offered. as an exhibit and not before. (Interpacific v. Aviles, G.R. No. 86062 June
6, 1990)
In case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party
making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is
being offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the
documentary evidence may be made. (Sps. Tapayan v. Martinez, G.R. No. 207786,
January 30, 2017)
3. object evidence
Objection to evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered. (Sps.

Tapayan v. Martinez, G.R. No. 207786, January 30, 2017)
K. What is the effect if an objection is not timely made?
When a party failed to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were
offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived. (Sps.
Tapayan v. Martinez; G.R. No. 207786, January 30, 2017)
The rule is that evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly
considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.
L. What is the reason why an objection must be made to questions

pertaining to documents which are inadmissible even before the
documents are offered?
In People v. Romil Marcos (212 SCRA 748, August 21, 1992), the Supreme Court
ruled that if a witness has not given a testimony when called to testify, however the
testimony was included in the unoffered evidence without objection from the adverse
party, the latter is estopped from raising that objection when he is deemed to
have waived; hence, although not formally offered, the evidence may be considered
by the court.
M. What are the kinds of objection according to:
1. Scope
a. FORMAL OBJECTION – is one directed against the alleged defect in the

formulation of the question
b. SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTION – objections made and directed against the

very nature of the evidence
2. nature
a. GENERAL OBJECTION/ BROADSIDE OBJECTION – it does not go

beyond declaring the evidence as immaterial, incompetent, irrelevant, or
inadmissible. It does not specify the grounds for objection.
b. SPECIFIC OBJECTION – it states why or how the evidence is irrelevant or

incompetent. (Riano, p. 349)
Page 48 of 112
N. Give 10 examples of formal objections.
1. If a counsel finds difficulty in avoiding leading questions, the judge may

suggest, to expedite proceedings, that counsel begin his questions with the
proper interrogative pronouns, such as "who," "what, " "where," "why," "how,"
etc.
2. Leading questions are allowed of a witness who cannot be reasonably
expected to be led by the examining counsel, as (a) on cross- examination;
(b) when the witness is unwilling or hostile, after it has been demonstrated
that the witness had shown unjustified reluctance to testify or has an adverse
interest or had misled the party into calling him to the witness stand, and in
either case after having been declared by the court to be indeed unwilling or
hostile; or (c) when the witness is an adverse party or an officer, director, or
managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse party.
3. Leading questions may also be asked when there is difficulty in getting direct
and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant or a child of tender
years, or is feeble minded, or a deaf-mute.
4. Leading questions may moreover be asked on preliminary matters, i.e., on
facts not in controversy, and offered only as basis for more important
testimony to follow. For example, "You are Mrs. Maria Morales, wife of the
plaintiff in this case?"
5. Likewise, asking a question which uses as a premise admitted facts or the
witnesses’ previous answer is not for that reason objectionable as leading.
6. misleading questions, which assume as true a fact not testified to by the
witness ("question has no basis"), or contrary to that which he has previously
stated;
7. double or multiple questions, which are two or more queries in one. For
example, Q: "Did you see the defendant enter the plaintiff’s house, and was
the plaintiff there?"
8. vague; ambiguous; indefinite or uncertain questions - not allowed because
the witness cannot understand from the form of the question just what facts
are sought to be elicited.
9. Repetitious questions, or those already answered. However, on cross-
examination, the cross-examiner may ask a question already answered to
test the credibility of a witness.
10. Argumentative questions, which challenge a witness testimony by engaging
him in an argument. (Benipayo, Evidence Basic Principles and Selected
Problems, p. 102-103)
O. Give 10 examples of substantive objections.
1. irrelevant; immaterial
2. best evidence rule
3. parol evidence rule
4. disqualification of witness
5. privileged communication
6. res inter alios acta
7. hearsay
8. opinion
9. evidence illegally obtained
10. private document not authenticated (Benipayo, p. 104)
P. What is Offer of Proof? (ALSO CALLED TENDER OF EXCLUDED

EVIDENCE)
Page 49 of 112
IF A PARTY'S OFFERED DOCUMENTARY OR OBJECT EVIDENCE IS

EXCLUDED, he may move or request that it be attached to form part of the
record of the case.
If a question asked of a witness by the counsel who presented him is objected to

and the objection is sustained, counsel may manifest for the record what the witness
would have answered if the witness had been allowed to do so this procedure is
known as offer of proof or tender of excluded evidence. (Rule 132, Sec. 40)
Q. What is the purpose of Offer of Proof?
1. To allow the court to know the nature of the testimony or the documentary
evidence and convince the trial judge to permit the evidence or
testimony.
2. To create and preserve a record for appeal. (Riano, Evidence: A
Restatement for the Bar, p. 477, 2009 ed.)
It is made for purpose of appeal. If an adverse judgment is eventually rendered

against the offeror, he may in his appeal assign as error the rejection of the excluded
evidence. The appellate court will better understand and appreciate the assignment
of error if the evidence involved is included in the record of the case. And since the
offer of proof is for appellate purposes, the same cannot be denied by the trial court.
(Benipayo, Evidence Basic Principles and Selected Problems, p. 129)
VI. OBJECT EVIDENCE
A. What is an object evidence?
Object evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court or is exhibited
to, examined or viewed by the court. (Sec 1, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
It covers any material that may be seen, heard, smelled, felt, or touched.
It is not limited to the view of an object. It extends to the visual, auditory, tactile,
gustatory, and olfactory.
It is considered as evidence of the highest order.
B. What is a demonstrative evidence?
Demonstrative evidence is a tangible evidence i.e. physical objects, which illustrate

a matter of importance to the case but are not the very objects involved in the case.
They merely illustrate or represent or emphasize, visualize or make more vivid what
a party desires to emphasize.
C. Differentiate object evidence from demonstrative evidence.
Distinction Object Demonstrative

Nature and Plays an actual role in the matter Merely illustrates a matter of
use in the that gave rise to the litigation importance in litigation.
case
The foundation that must be laid The foundation involves
How in order to be admissible relates showing that the object fairly
foundation is to the proving that the evidence represents or illustrates what
laid is indeed the object used in the is alleged to illustrate.
underlying event.
DISCUSSIONS:
Demonstrative and object evidence belongs to a different category.
Demonstrative Evidence
E.g., anatomically correct judge - used to show how the real thing is supposed
to be. (Minor raped - doll is used to demonstrate how the act was done against
the child)
Experiments
DNA - analysis/ examination—which part actually is the demonstrative

evidence?
● Report- documentary
● Sample- object
Is demonstrative evidence necessarily a documentary evidence? No. If the
evidence is appreciated for its contents.
Is a demonstrative evidence an object evidence?

Page 51 of 112
E.g., you let the accused bake. (CASE: TRADE SECRET RECIPE) Showing the
process.
■ Testimonial evidence
In appreciating documentary evidence, what does the court use? Content-
still use sense of sight, but involve intellectual process
Sense of sight:
E.g., To show alterations in a document. (Correction fluid)
D. Why is object evidence also called real evidence?
Object evidence is real evidence because it can be addressed to the senses of the
court, it is not limited to view an object but extends to what is perceived by the
senses of hearing, taste, smell or touch. (Regalado, p. 717)
Further, it is also called real evidence because it is the most credible kind of
evidence. (Moran, Comments on Rules of Court)
E. Why is it also known as autoptic evidence?
Autoptic evidence is defined as physical evidence that can be seen and inspected.
(Retrieved, uslegal.com) Object evidence is also known as autoptic evidence
because of the characteristic of object evidence that it can be viewed or seen by the
court.
Auto - hearing
Optic - sight
F. What is autoptic proference?
Autoptic preference means evidence of one’s senses. It also means presenting in

open court the evidentiary articles for the observation or inspection of the tribunal.
(Wigmore)
Autoptic preference are sometimes called real evidence. This evidence is furnished
by thing or physical object on view or inspection as distinguished from description
by witness.
G. What are the requisites so that an object evidence may be admitted in

evidence?
The following are the requisites for admissibility:
1. The object must be relevant to the fact in issue;

2. The object must be authenticated before it is admitted;
3. The authentication must be made by a competent witness;
4. The object must be formally offered in evidence.
H. What are the categories of object evidence? How may evidence falling
under each category be authenticated?
a. Unique objects – readily identifiable marks
b. Objects made unique – objects which are made readily identifiable

Page 52 of 112
c. non-unique – objects with no identifying marks
DISCUSSIONS:
1. UNIQUE - need not be proved Authenticate – readily identifiable (marked

before the act)
2. OBJECT MADE UNIQUE (marked after the act)
a. Made identifiable because of the marking of the investigating officer

b. The person who made the marking - must be presented in the court.
Why it was marked. Investigating officer placed his initials in the
object.
c. No need to prove chain of custody.
d. You can use the marking to identify the evidence itself.
3. NON-UNIQUE OBJECTS
a. These are fungible things

b. prove chain of custody (to establish that the object evidence was not
substituted)
c. You may have marked the container, but the thing inside can be
replaced
d. Marking (only used for identification later on – all kinds of evidence,
not only drugs; e.g., DNA samples) - used to establish chain of
custody.
I. What is the doctrine of Chain of Custody?
Chain-of-Custody (movement of the object from one person to another) in the event
the object passed into the possession of different persons. This means proving the
chronological sequence through which the object was handled only by persons who,
by reason of their function or office, can reasonably be expected to have the right
or duty to possess or handle the object.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. [Mallillin v. People, 576
Phil. 576, 586-587 (2008)]
Chain of custody involving dangerous drugs and other substances is defined in

Section 1 (b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002:
"CHAIN OF CUSTODY" means the duly recorded authorized movements and

custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/
confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction.
J. What are the links in the chain of custody of drugs. People of the
Philippines vs. Lorenz Esguerra, G.R. 243986 January 22, 2020; People
vs. Teng Moner, G.R. No. 202206 dated March 5, 2018
People of the Philippines vs. Lorenz Esguerra, G.R. 243986 January 22, 2020
To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral certainty, the
prosecution must be able to ACCOUNT FOR EACH LINK OF THE CHAIN
Page 53 of 112
OF CUSTODY from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation
in court as evidence of the crime.
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the
marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be
conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. The law
further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the
presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or
his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely:
a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640,

a. a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and
b. any elected public official; or
b) if after the amendment 9165 by RA 10640,

a. an elected public official and
b. a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the
media.
The law REQUIRES THE PRESENCE OF THESE WITNESSES primarily "to

ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any
suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence."
People vs. Teng Moner, G.R. No. 202206 dated March 5, 2018
Saraum v. People:
The chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who
handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the
authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia
from the time they were seized from the accused until the time they are
presented in court.x x x. (Citation omitted.)
Mallillin v. People:
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the

elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be established with
moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is not authorized by law.
The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense
and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Essential
therefore in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be
established beyond doubt. Be that as it may, the mere fact of unauthorized
possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty
required to sustain a finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession,
the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same
substance offered in court as exhibit must also be established with the same
unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain
of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule

requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be.
It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that
every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it
Page 54 of 112
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness'
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which
it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in
the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to
have possession of the same. (Citations omitted.)
DISCUSSIONS:
The links in the chain of custody of drugs are:
1. the time of seizure/confiscation

2. receipt in the forensic laboratory
3. safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction (DDB Regulation No.
1, Series of 2002)
General Rule: Marking of evidence at the seizure (marked at the place where
the item was seized). Then turned over by the apprehending officer to
investigating officer
NOTE:
1. If seized through search warrant first submitted to the court w/c issued
search warrant.
2. Agent who seized should now release a motion for release of drugs for its
submission to the chemist
justify why chain of custody was not followed
K. When may a documentary evidence be presented as an object

evidence?
A documentary evidence becomes an object evidence if the purpose of its

presentation is to prove its existence/ physical appearance.
DISCUSSION:
What is the significance?
- There are different ways of authenticating them.
Documentary evidence- contents- for as long as it is written in the document

- (are u sure bb gurl?)
Letter with blood splatters - documentary or object evidence?
L. Give five limitations to the presentation of object evidence. “Reasons

why you cannot present it as object evidence”
Object or real evidence may be refused admittance by the court on the following
grounds:
1. When the object evidence is repulsive or its exhibition is contrary to public

policy, morals or sense of decency.
Page 55 of 112
2. Requiring its being viewed in court or in ocular inspection would result in

delays, inconvenience, or unnecessary expenses which are out of
proportion to the evidentiary value of such object.
3. Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading, as when the

purpose is to prove the former condition of the object and there is no
preliminary showing that there has been no substantial change in said
condition.
Judge Mac: Opposite
e.g. tendency that object evidence will deteriorate
4. The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays

the object in question as to render a view thereof unnecessary.
5. The admission must violate the right against self- incrimination.

(Evidence, Ateneo Law Reviewer)
M. For what evidentiary purpose may blood grouping tests be conclusive?
Blood grouping tests are CONCLUSIVE on non-paternity, although

INCONCLUSIVE on paternity.
Paternity — Science has demonstrated that by the analysis of blood samples of the
mother, the child, and the alleged father, it can be established conclusively that the
man is not the father of the child. But group blood testing cannot show that a man
is the father of a particular child, but at least can show only a possibility that he is.
(Jao v. Court of Appeals, No. L-49162, 28 July 1987, 152 SCRA 359)
DISCUSSION:
Blood grouping test- object or documentary?
N. What is DNA evidence? (Ref: Antonio Lejano vs. People of the

Philippines, G.R. No. 176389 December 14, 2010; People of the
Philippines vs. Edgar Allan Corpuz G.R. No. 208013, July 3, 2017)
“DNA evidence” constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other
genetic information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples.
(Sec. 3, A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC)
1. What is DNA?
DNA, which stands for Deoxyribonucleic Acid, is the chain of molecules found in
every nucleated cell of the body. The totality of an individual's DNA is unique for the
individual, except for identical twins. (Section 3, DNA Evidence Rule, A.M. No. 06-
11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)
2. Give 5 instances when DNA evidence may be used.
a) DNA print or identification technology has been advanced as a uniquely

effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or
b) To exonerate a wrongly accused suspect, where biological evidence has

been left.
Page 56 of 112
c) For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source

of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.
d) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be
conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of the Probability of
Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be
considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability of
Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of
paternity.
e) DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there was physical contact

between an assailant and a victim.
3. What are the factors to be considered in determining the probative

value of DNA evidence?
In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall
consider the following:
1. The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected,
how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples;
2. The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in

analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure,
and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;
3. The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable

standards-setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant
experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be
properly established; and
4. The reliability of the testing result. [Sec. 7, A.M. No. 06- 11-5-SC]
4. What makes DNA evidence reliable?
DNA evidence is reliable because it uses a scientifically valid technique which

has the potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper
resolution of the case. [Sec. 4 (c) (d), A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC]
5. What are the factors affecting the reliability of DNA evidence?
The factors affecting the reliability of DNA evidence are as follows:
1. The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the theory
or technique can be and has been tested;
2. The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods;
3. The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific
community;
4. The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the
correctness of data generated;
5. The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and
6. The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations
used in comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of
statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles. (Sec. 8, A.M. No. 06-
11-5-SC)
Page 57 of 112
6. What are the requisites for the admissibility of DNA evidence?
DNA Evidence as an object evidence follows the requisites for the admissibility of
object evidence. Thus, the requisites for admissibility:
1. The object must be relevant to the fact in issue;

2. The object must be authenticated before it is admitted;
3. The authentication must be made by a competent witness;
4. The object must be formally offered in evidence. (Riano, p. 101)
7. What is the purpose of Post-conviction DNA testing?
The testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment
of conviction. (Sec. 6, Sec. 8, A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC)
VII. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
1. What is documentary evidence?
These are documents as evidence which consist of writings, recordings,

photographs, or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols,
or their equivalent, or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of their
contents. (Sec. 2, Rule 130)
Documentary evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any

material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols or their
equivalent or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their
contents. Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray
films, motion pictures or videos.
2. How would you classify the various documentary evidence as stated in

the 2019 amended rules?
The following are the classifications of documentary evidence in A.M No. 19-08-15-
SC:
a. Writings
b. Recordings
c. Photographs
d. Any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols, or their
equivalent
e. Other modes of written expression
3. What is the foremost consideration in determining if a piece of evidence

is being offered as documentary evidence?
If the evidence is to be presented to prove its contents and the evidence contains
letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of
written expressions. (Sec. 2, Rule 130)
4. How does a judge appreciate documentary evidence?
By looking into the contents of the documents and the relevancy of the contents to
the subject matter of the proceeding.
DISCUSSION: Use intellectual process.
5. What is a document?
A document is a deed, instrument or other duly authorized paper by which

something is proved, evidenced or set forth. (Bermejo v. Barrios, G.R. No. L-23614,
Feb. 27, 1970)
6. Is a document the same as an instrument?
No. An instrument is a document. But not all docs are instruments.
A Document is the record of the conditions agreed upon by the parties involved in a
transaction in a proper format. Ex: photographs
Instrument is a document by which a right or liability is created, transferred,
extended, limited, extinguished or recorded. Ex: deed of sale, wills, lease contract.
Page 59 of 112
7. What is the Best Evidence Rule?
The best evidence rule requires that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself except
in the instances mentioned in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.
(Sps. Tapayan v. Martinez, G.R. No. 207786 January 30, 2017)
It states that when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. (Section 3, Rule
130, Rule on Evidence)
Best evidence rule is now properly called the “Original Document Rule”.
DISCUSSIONS:
Primary evidence v. secondary evidence
Primary Evidence: Main/Principal/Original Evidence
Secondary Evidence: refers to any evidence to prove the contents of a

document other than the original of the said writing. It maybe oral or written.
**Primary evidence rule is now the BEST EVIDENCE RULE. (Best

available substantiation of an object)
8. What is the Original Document Rule?
THE DOCUMENT ITSELF OR ITS COUNTERPART IS AN ORIGINAL. An 'original'

of a document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same
effect by a person executing or issuing it [Sec. 4 (a), Rule 130].
Original Document Rule means that when the subject of the inquiry is the contents
of the document, you will have to present the original document.
And you will not be allowed to present any other evidence other than the original
document.
9. What are the requisites for the application of the Original Document
Rule?
The following are the requisites of Original Document Rule:
a. The subject matter must involve a document; and

b. The subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document.
c. Not excluded by law by Sec. 3, Rule 130
10. What is the original of a document?
An "original" of a document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to

have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An "original" of a
photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data is stored in a
computer or similar device. any printout or other output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an "original." [Section 4 (a) , Rule
130, A.M. No. 19-08- 15-SC]
DISCUSSIONS:
Page 60 of 112
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT - Original itself or a counterpart. How should we

understand:
Is a duplicate also an original of a document?
NO. They are not the same. Same only as to the extent of
admissibility.
Xerox copy - considered as a duplicate.
Before: photocopy (May we pray your honor that this be provisionally

marked.- will not be accepted by the court if you cannot present the original)
Now: Yes. Photocopy as a duplicate - is an original. (as to admissibility)

(Will no longer be provisionally marked)
11. What is the duplicate of a document?
A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or

from the same matrix, or by means of photography a including enlargements and
miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording. or by chemical reproduction,
or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original. Section
4 (b) , Rule 130, A.M. No. 19-08-15- SC
It is two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents.
DISCUSSION:
Intention-
Is photocopy a duplicate? – you are going to prove why you cannot present
the original document.
If a photocopy is a duplicate, then it would have the same extent as to the

admissibility of an original.
GENERAL RULE: Duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original.

- No need to present the original copy.
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE: [Sec 4 (c), Rule 130]
1. Genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original.
- Present the original of the document itself.
*Will the duplicate have a lesser admissibility than that of an

original if the appearance of the photocopy itself is
questionable? (e.g., superimposed signature)
- Not a faithful representation of the original due to (ex:

alterations)
- Need to present the original.
- Admission of the duplicate will be unjust.
2. In the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate

in lieu of the original.
Page 61 of 112
Duplicate being questioned for not being the duplicate: then it would have the
same admissibility as the original but then it should be established that that
photocopy is a duplicate.
If the duplicate was NOT made in any manner stated in sec 4 paragraph B-
not a duplicate- don’t apply par C.
**Prove how duplicate was made under par B — before you apply par C.
PHOTOGRAPHS
If you saved the picture in your computer, and print it, the printed material
is an original.
Photocopy of a picture - is there still a need to mark it provisionally? – YES?
If a photocopy was authenticated, is it already considered the original?
12. What is the rule on the admissibility of the original and a duplicate of a
document? What are the exceptions to this rule?
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording,

photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible other than the original
document itself, except in the following cases:
GENERAL RULE: Original document - need to present.
EXCEPTION:
a. When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,

without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
*when you cannot compel its production.
b. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against
whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice, OR the original cannot be obtained by local judicial
processes or procedures;
Remedy: Ask for the production of the document (Rule 27) or by virtue
of subpoena duces tecum. If not possible, present secondary
evidence
Difference between:
a. Cannot be produced in court— not being withheld by the

adverse party.
b. Original under the control of another party—withheld by the

adverse party. Apply remedies (ask for the production of the
document (rule 27) or by virtue of subpoena duces tecum.
c. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents

which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact
sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole;
Page 62 of 112
- Present summary. Apply Sec 7, Rule 130
d. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer OR

is recorded in a public office; and
e. When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue. (Section

3, Rule 130 A.M. No. 19-08-15- SC)
- When the original is irrelevant?

- Whether the original state of the document is the issue is the content
of the document.
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless
1. a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or

2. in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu
of the original. [Sec. 4 (c) A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC]
13. What is secondary evidence?
Secondary evidence is that which shows that better or primary evidence exists as
to proof of the fact in question. It is the class of evidence that is relevant to the fact
in issue, it is being first shown that the primary evidence of the fact is not obtainable.
It performs the same functions as that of a primary evidence.
Secondary evidence is any evidence other than the document itself.
E.g.,
1. a copy;
2. recital of its contents in some authentic document;
3. recollection of the witnesses. (Sec 5, Revised Rules on Evidence, as
amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15 SC)
DISCUSSIONS:
1. Copy
Are we referring to a duplicate?
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY - Duplicate.
2. Recital in some authentic document:
Only contents are copied. — E.g.: annotation of deed of absolute sale in the
title.
3. Testimony of witness.
Follow order of priority.
14. What are the requisites for the introduction of secondary documentary
evidence?
The offeror must prove the following:

Page 63 of 112
a. All duplicates or counterparts of such document must first be accounted

before one can resort to secondary evidence.
b. It must appear that all of them have been lost or destroyed or cannot be
produced in court.
c. Execution or existence of the original document;
d. The cause of its unavailability (The non production of the original document,
unless it falls under any of the exceptions in Sec. 3, Rule 130 gives rise to
the presumption of suppression of evidence). [De Vera, et al. v. Aguilar, et
al. GR No. 83377, February 9, 1993)]; and
e. The unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith on his part. (Sec 5,
Rule 130)
The requisites in order that secondary evidence may be presented are as follows:
a. Prove the due execution of the original;

b. Proof of the loss, destruction or unavailability of such originals;
c. Proof that reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for at least an
attempt to produce the original.
(Republic of the Phiippines v. Ma. Imelda R. Marcos-Manotoc, et.al, GR No.

171701, February 8, 2012)
a. The offer or must prove the due execution and existence of the original
document.
b. The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability
c. The offeror must show that the unavailability was not due to his bad faith.
15. What are the requisites for the presentation of a summary of a

document?
When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or numerous accounts are

voluminous and cannot be examined in court without great loss of time. and
the fact sought to be established is only the general result of the whole, the contents
of such evidence may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation.
(Section 7, Rule 130 A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)
16. May a party who requested for the production of a document under Rule
27 be obliged to offer the same in evidence?
NO, a party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not
obliged to offer it as evidence. Because no unfavorable inference may be drawn
from such failure.
17. What is parol evidence?
Oral or verbal evidence, that which is given by word of mouth; the ordinary kind of
evidence, given by witnesses in court. In particular sense, and with reference to
contract, deeds, wills, and other writings, parol evidence is the same as extraneous
evidence or evidence aliunde. (Philippine Legal Encyclopedia, Jose Agaton R.
Sibal, 1986)
It is an evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written agreement.

(Sec. 9, Rule 130)
It is any evidence aliunde (Extrinsic evidence) which is intended or tends to vary or

contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document
Page 64 of 112
(Regalado, 2008). It may refer to testimonial, real or documentary evidence. It is

evidence outside of the agreement of the parties.
18. What is the Parol Evidence Rule?
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered

as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as between the parties
and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement. Section 10, Revised Rules on Evidence,
amended by A.M. No.19-08-15 SC.
19. What are the requisites for the application of the parol evidence rule?
Requisites:
a. There must be valid contract.

b. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to writing.
c. The dispute is between the parties or their successors-in-interest.
d. There is dispute as to the terms of agreement.
20. What are the exceptions to the parol evidence rule?
The exceptions to the parol evidence rule is that a PARTY MAY PRESENT
EVIDENCE TO MODIFY, EXPLAIN, OR ADD TO THE TERMS OF THE WRITTEN
AGREEMENT IF HE OR SHE PUTS IN ISSUE IN A VERIFIED PLEADING:
a. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;

b. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement
of the parties thereto;
c. The validity of the written agreement; or
d. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-
in-interest after the execution of the written agreement. (Section 10, Rule
130, Revised Rules on Evidence, amended by A.M. No.19-08-15 SC)
OTHER ANSWER:
a. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement.

b. Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties
thereto.
c. Validity of the written agreement.
d. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the written agreement.
21. What is considered an intrinsic ambiguity in a document?
It is a kind of ambiguity also known as Latent Ambiguity. On its face, the writing
appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral matters which make the
meaning uncertain. It is curable by evidence aliunde. It is that where the
document refers to a particular person or thing but there are two or more persons
having the same name or two or more things to which the description in the writing
may apply. (Riguera, p. 518 to 519)
The fact that a word or a phrase or the general sense of a document or part of it,
could equally apply to more than one thing or event. (Philippine Legal Encyclopedia,
Jose Agaton R. Sibal, 1986, p.44)
Page 65 of 112
On its face, the writing appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral
matters which make the meaning uncertain. It is curable by evidence aliundae.
22. Differentiate Parol Evidence Rule from the Original Document Rule.
Parol Evidence Rule Original Document Rule

(Section 10, Rule 130, (Section 3, Rule 130,
DISTINCTIONS
Revised Rules on Evidence, Revised Rules on
as amended) Evidence, as amended)
Availability of The original of the
The original of the document
Original document is not available
is available in court.
Document in court.
Parol evidence rule
Original document rule
prohibits varying the terms
Prohibition prohibits the introduction
if there is written
of secondary evidence.
agreement.
In Parol evidence, the
Original document rule
controversies are between
Controversies involves any parties to
the parties to the written
the action.
agreement.
Contractual agreements
Coverage All forms of document.
including wills.
23. Summarize the rules on the interpretation of written documents.
a) Section 10. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning.

b) Section 11. Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions.
c) Section 12. Interpretation according to intention; general and particular
provisions, the latter is paramount to the former. So, a particular intent will
control a general one that is inconsistent with it.
d) Section 13. Interpretation according to circumstances.
e) Section 14. Peculiar signification of terms.
f) Section 15. Written words control printed.
g) Section 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings.
h) Section 17. Of Two constructions, that is to be taken which is the most
favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made.
i) Section 18. Construction in favor of natural right.
j) Section 19. Interpretation according to usage. (Rule 130)
24. What is authentication of a documentary evidence?
It is the proof of their due execution and authenticity before they can be received
in evidence. This may require the presentation and examination of witnesses to
testify on this fact. (General Enterprises, Inc. v. Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc., No.
L-18487, August 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 733)
25. How do you authenticate:
a. written private document
The presentation and examination of witnesses to testify to the authenticity of the

writer's signature appearing in a private document. (General Enterprises, Inc. v.
Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc., No. L-18487, August 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 733)
b. written public document

Page 66 of 112
Public or notarial documents, or those instruments duly acknowledged or proved

and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof,
the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution
of the instrument or document involved. (Chua v. CA, G.R. No. 88383, February
19, 1992)
c. recording (audio or video)
Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be

admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall
be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording
or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.” (Section
1, Rule 11, Rules on Electronic Evidence)
d. CCTV footage (opo video din, pero iba?)
Authenticated by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who
has personal knowledge thereof. (Nuez v. Apao, A.M. NO. CA-05-18-P April 12,
2005)
Layman’s approach: may be authenticated by any “other evidence showing its

integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.”
e. still pictures
Authentication of photographs is not limited to the photographer who took the

picture but that these can also be identified by another competent witness who
can testify as to their exactness or accuracy [Sison vs. People, 250 SCRA 58
(1995); Republic v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 199 (1998)].
f. SMS/MMS messages
Authenticated by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has
personal knowledge thereof. (Nuez v. Apao, A.M. NO. CA-05-18-P April 12, 2005)
g. posts on a Facebook page
Section 2, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE) provides that “[b]efore
any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
a. by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to

have signed the same;
b. by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be
authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic
documents were applied to the document; or
c. by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction
of the judge.”
26. What is the difference between a CCTV footage and a video recording
taken by a person?
CCTV is a remote access recording through the use of a network,
while a Video Recording is done in active access by a person.

Page 67 of 112
27. What documentary evidence requires no authentication?
Public documents, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, OR because it

has been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a
competent public official with formalities required by law, OR because it is a public
record of a private writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires
no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. (People of
the Philippines v. Gimenez)
28. What are the kinds of documents according to the manner of

authentication?
Public and Private documents. (Sec. 19 to 33, Rule 132)
29. Differentiate private documents from public documents.
A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has

been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent
public official with formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of a
private writing authorized by law, is self- authenticating and requires no further
authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court.
In contrast, a private document is any writing, deed, or instrument executed by a

private person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized
by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official
or sovereign character of public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a
private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by law, or the Rules
of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court. (People of the Philippines v.
Gimenez)
30. What is a private document? (Otero vs. Tan G.R. No. 200134 dated
August 15, 2012)
A private document is any other writing, deed or instrument executed by a private

person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized
by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official
or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law.
31. How may a private writing be authenticated?
By DIRECT EVIDENCE consisting of the testimony of witness such as:
i. The parties to the document

ii. By an attesting /subscribing witness
iii. By a person who was present and saw its execution and
iv. By the person before whom it was executed and acknowledged.
BY PROOF OR EVIDENCE OF THE GENUINENESS of the handwriting or

signature of the maker or of the parties thereto. It may be by any of the following:
i. Direct evidence consisting of the testimony of the maker or party affirming

his own handwriting or signature.
ii. By the testimony of the attesting/subscribing witnesses or of witnesses

to the execution thereof.
Page 68 of 112
iii. By the use of “Opinion Evidence” pursuant to the Section 22 of Rule 131
such as:
a. by one who has obtained sufficient familiarity

b. by an expert based on a comparison with a genuine handwriting.
iv. By the contents of the document.
v. By the style of writing.
32. How is the genuineness of a handwriting proven?
The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the
handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen
writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and
has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence
respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness
or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom
the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
(Sec. 22, Rule 132)
33. What is a public document?
Public documents are:

do not rebut
(a) The written official acts, or records of the sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
testaments;
(c) Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and
conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the country of
source; and
(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by
law to be entered therein. (Sec. 19, Rule 132) ( prima Facie )
evidence
rebuttable
34. Why is it considered public? Rule
Pg¥wr
"
Public documents, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has
been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent wee
public official with formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of a
private writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires no further
authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. (People of the
Philippines v. Gimenez)
35. What are the different kinds of public documents? Give one example documentary
testimonial
for each.
Public documents are:

"
(a) The written official acts, or records of the sovereign authority, official euidl
bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
testaments;
Page 69 of 112
(c) Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and
conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the country of
source; and
(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by
law to be entered therein. (Sec. 19, Rule 132)
Examples:
a. decisions of courts or quasi-judicial bodies, legislative enactments, executive

orders, directive from superior officers or memoranda, written appointments
b. Deeds and Conveyances
c.
d. Personal Bio Data or Information Sheets submitted to form part of the 201
File of government officials
OTHER ANSWER:
Public documents are defined under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence as follows:
The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country
Example: Judgment.
Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments
Example:
Deed of Sale and documents affecting registered lands which are submitted to the
Register of Deeds, Assessors Office
Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be

entered therein
Examples:
Income tax Returns submitted to the Bureau of internal revenue
36. Differentiate the kinds of public documents as to what they may prove.
(ref: RP vs. Fe Roa Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673 dated January 11, 2016)
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance

of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
Public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer" include those
specified as public documents under Section 19(a), Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
and the acknowledgement, affirmation or oath, or jurat portion of public documents
under Section 19(c).
All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact
which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.
Under Section 23, notarized documents are merely proof of the fact which gave
rise to their execution and of the date of the latter but is not prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated.
Page 70 of 112
OTHER ANSWER:
Public documents as prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated; and Public
documents as not prima facie evidence of the facts not therein stated. [Philippine
Trust Company v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., 650 Phil. 54 (2010)]
1. PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ONLY PROVE
a. whatever is stated in the document

b. not of the facts not stated in the document.
37. What kind of public documents are judicial records?
They are considered as Public records made in the performance of a duty by a

public officer. (RP v. Fe Roa Gimenez; G.R. No. 174673 dated January 11, 2016)
38. How do you impeach documentary evidence in general?
a. by contradictory evidence;
b. by prior inconsistent statements or “laying the predicate”
OTHER ANSWER:
Documentary evidence may be impeached:
a. By objection and without objection, the objection is waived, and the evidence
is admitted (Sec. 36, Rule 132); or
b. By motion to strike (Sec. 39, Rule 132).
39. How do you impeach judicial records?
Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
a. want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer,

b. collusion between the parties, or
c. fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (Sec. 29,
Rule 132)
40. What are notarial documents?
Notarial documents are those acknowledged before a notary public. [Sec. 19 (b),
Rule 132]
41. Is an affidavit a notarial document?
Yes. An affidavit is a notarial document because it must be acknowledged before

a notary public.
42. Is an affidavit a public document?
Yes. Since an affidavit is a notarial document, it follows that it is also a public

document in accordance with [Sec. 19 (b), Rule 132, ROC]
43. How do you prove notarial documents?

Page 71 of 112
Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law,

may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or
document involved. (Sec. 30, Rule 132)
44. What will you present if you want to prove an official record?
1. The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section

19, when admissible for any purpose,
- may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested

by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his or her
deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a
certificate that such officer has the custody.
2. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, which is

a contracting party to a treaty or convention to which the Philippines is
also a party, or considered a public document under such treaty or
convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19 hereof, the
certificate or its equivalent
- shall be in the form prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to

reciprocity granted to public documents originating from the
Philippines.
3. For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a

contracting party to a treaty or convention referred to in the next
preceding sentence,
- the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul

general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record
is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his [or her] office.
4. A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may

be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate or its
equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due execution and
genuineness of the document involved. The certificate shall not be
required when a treaty or convention between a foreign country and the
Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has exempted the document
itself from this formality. (24a) (Sec. 24, Rule 132)
45. How do you prove the non-existence of an official record?
That there is no publication of the alleged record or an attestation by the officer

having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the
record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
custody that such official record is non-existent.
OTHER ANSWER:
The non-existence of an official record may be proved by a written statement

signed by an officer having custody of an official record or by his deputy.
The written statement must contain the following matters:
a. there has been a diligent search of the record;

Page 72 of 112
b. despite the diligent search, no record of entry of specified tenor is found to

exist in the records of his office.
46. When is a document or record required to be attested?
To prove the copy of an evidence. (Sec. 24, Rule 132)
OTHER ANSWER:
A document is required to be attested when public document presented is a certified

true copy of a public document. Such document must be attested by the proper
custodian and bearing the certification by him, his signature, and the seal of his
office, pursuant to the principle of Irremovability of Public records.
47. What should be stated in the attestation?
The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the
original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. (Sec. 24, Rule 132)
OTHER ANSWER:
The attestation should state the following:
a. That the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as
the case may be;
b. it must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, OR if
he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
48. When may an altered document be admissible?
The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears
to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute,
must account for the alteration. He may show that the alteration was:
1. made by another, without his concurrence, or
2. was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or
3. was otherwise properly or innocently made, or
4. that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the
instrument.
49. Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)
a. What are governed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence?
These shall apply whenever an electronic document or electronic data

message is offered or used in evidence. (Section 1, Rule 1, REE)
SEC. 2. Cases covered. - These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and
proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.
SEC. 3. Application of the other rules on evidence. - In all matters not specifically
covered by these Rules, the Rules of Court and pertinent provisions of statues
containing rules on evidence shall apply.
Page 73 of 112
b. Is it applicable to criminal cases?
No. Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rule on Evidence specifically enumerates that the
same rule is only applicable to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as
quasi- judicial and administrative cases. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
c. What is electronic evidence?
Electronic evidence refers to the information generated, sent, received or stored by

electronic, optical or similar means.
According to Black’s law dictionary, evidence is “any species of proof, or probative

matter, legally presented at the trial of an issue, by the act of the parties and through
the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc. for
the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury as to their contention.”
Electronic information (like paper) generally is admissible into evidence in a legal
proceeding.
Any computer-generated data that is relevant to a case. Included are email, text
documents, spreadsheets, images, database files, deleted email and files and back-
ups. The data may be on floppy disk, zip disk, hard drive, tape, CD or DVD.
d. What is an electronic document?
“Electronic document” refers to information or the representation of information,

data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however
represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by
which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted,
stored processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed
documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which
accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For
purposes of these Rules, the term “electronic document” may be used
interchangeably with electronic data message”. [Section 1 (h), Rule 2, Rules on
Electronic Evidence]
e. What is an electronic signature?
“Electronic signature” refers to any distinctive mark, characteristics and/or sound in

electronic form. Representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically
associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any
methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or
adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or approving an
electronic data message or electronic document. It includes digital signatures.
[Section 1 (j), Rule 2, Rules on Electronic Evidence]
f. What are the presumptions regarding an electronic signature?
Upon the authentication of an electronic signature, it shall be presumed that:
a. The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates;

b. The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of
authenticating or approving the electronic document to which it is related or
to indicate such person’s consent to the transaction embodied therein; and
c. The methods or processes utilized to affix or verity the electronic signature
operated without error or fault.
Page 74 of 112
g. How is an electronic signature different from a digital signature?
“Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristics and/or sound

in electronic form. Representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically
associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any
methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or
adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or approving an
electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, an
electronic signature includes digital signatures.
On the other hand, “Digital Signature” refers to an electronic signature consisting

of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using
an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial
untransformed electronic document and the signer’s public key can accurately
determine:
i. whether the transformation was created using the private key that
corresponds to the signer’s public key; and
ii. whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the
transformation was made.
h. How does an electronic signature work?
An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticated in the manner prescribed

by law is admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of a
person on a written document.
i. How is an electronic evidence authenticated?
An electronic signature may be authenticated in any of the following manner:
a. By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital

signature and verity the same;
b. By any other means provided by law; or
c. By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness
of the electronic signature. Section 2, Rule 6, Rules on Electronic Evidence
j. What is an ephemeral evidence?
Ephemeral evidence/ “Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone

conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming
video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not
recorded or retained.
Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person

who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or
unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted.
VIII. TESTIMONIES AND WITNESSES
A. Testimonies and Qualifications of Witnesses:
1. What is a testimony?
Testimony means only such evidence as is delivered by a witness on the trial of a

cause, either orally or in the form of affidavits or depositions. (Black’s law dictionary)
2. What is testimonial knowledge?
Testimonial knowledge refers to those facts which a witness can testify of which he
or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his
or her own perception. (Section 22, Rule 130, Amended Rules on Evidence)
3. In what form may a testimony be given?
Orally or in the form of affidavits or depositions. (Black’s law dictionary)
4. Who is a witness?
Refers to a person who testifies in court and gives evidence before a judicial tribunal.
5. Who is a child witness?
A "child witness" is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age
of eighteen (18) years. In child abuse cases, a child includes one over eighteen (18)
years but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of himself or protect
himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition. (Sec. 4(a), A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)
a. Who is a facilitator?
"Facilitator" means a person appointed by the court to pose questions to a child.

(Sec. 4(c), A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)
b. Who is a support person?
A "support person" is a person chosen by the child to accompany him to testify at

or attend a judicial proceeding or deposition to provide emotional support for him.
(Sec. 4(f), A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)
c. What is the procedure in testing the competency of a child witness?
Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall conduct
a competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it
finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to
tell the truth in court. (Sec. 6, A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)
d. How is the examination of a child witness done?
The examination of a child witness presented in a hearing or any proceeding shall

be done in open court. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question
Page 76 of 112
calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.
(Sec. 8, A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)
6. Who is a state witness?
Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and desires to be a
witness for the State. (Sec. 10, RA 6981)
7. What is the difference between a state witness under the rules on

criminal procedure and a state witness under RA 6981?
Under Sec. 17, Rule 119 state witness can only be considered as such upon
direction of the court while in RA 6981 there is no requirement for the court to direct
an accused to be a state witness so long as the witness desires to be a state
witness.
8. Who is a hostile witness?
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court

upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or
his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. (Sec. 12, Rule 132,
ROC)
9. What are the qualifications of a witness?
All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to
others, may be witnesses. (Sec. 21, Rule 130)
10. Who is a competent witness?
A competent witness is one who meets the basic qualifications of a witness and is
not otherwise disqualified by law.
11. Who is a credible witness?
A credible witness is one who meets the weight, trustworthiness, and reliability of
the testimony.
B. Obligations and Rights of Witnesses
1. What are the obligations of a witness?
As a rule, a witness has an obligation to answer questions, although his answer may
tend to establish a claim against him. (Rule 132 Sec. 3)
2. What are the rights of a witness?
1. To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions, and from

harsh or insulting demeanor.
2. Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require.
3. Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue.
4. Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an
offense. (right against self- incrimination)
Page 77 of 112
C. Examination of Witnesses
1. Why must testimonies be given in open court? Heirs of Teresita

Villanueva vs. Heirs of Petronila Syquia Mendoza G.R. No. 209132 dated
June 5, 2017
This method allows the court the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness
and allows the adverse party to cross-examine the witness.
2. In what form may a testimony be made?
Oral or written.
3. What are the exceptions to the rule that testimonies must be given
orally?
Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different
mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (Sec. 1, Rule 132)
4. What is the difference between an oath and an affirmation?
An oath is an outward pledge made under an immediate sense of responsibility to

God or a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being in attestation of the truth of some
statement. An affirmation is a substitute for an oath, and is a solemn and formal
declaration that the witness will tell the truth.
5. Why must a witness be sworn?
A witness must be sworn because it is necessary for the witness to recognize the
duty to tell the truth. The oath of a witness signifies that he is swearing to the Creator
“to tell the truth and nothing but the truth” and that if he does not, he will later on
answer for all the lies he is guilty of. (Riano)
6. What are the duties of a witness?
a. To testify
b. to answer questions
c. to answer truthfully
7. Who shall examine the witness?
In a direct examination, the witness’ counsel shall examine the witness. In a cross-
examination, the opposing party’s counsel examines the witness.
8. What is a voir dire examination under the Philippine setting?
A preliminary examination conducted by the trial judge where the witness is duly
sworn to answer as to his competency.
9. What is the procedure in conducting a competency test for a child

witness?
Page 78 of 112
Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall conduct
a competency examination of a child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it
finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to
tell the truth in court. (Sec. 6, A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)
10. What are the purposes of:
a. Direct examination
To elicit facts about the client’s cause of action or defense
b. Cross-examination
To impeach the credibility of the testimony; to impeach the credibility of the witness;
to elicit admissions; and to clarify certain matters
c. Re-direct examination
To allow the witness to explain or amplify his testimony during cross-examination;

and to explain any apparent contradiction or inconsistency in his statements
d. Re-cross examination
To rebut damaging evidence brought out during cross- examination.
11. What is a judicial affidavit?
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, a judicial affidavit is an affidavit on direct examination of a

witness, which is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him
on the facts relevant to the issue. It takes the place of the direct testimonies of
witnesses.
12. What are the rules on the application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule in:
a. civil cases
Rules apply irrespective of the penalty involved. (Sec. 9, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
b. criminal cases
Rules applies to criminal cases where the “maximum of the imposable penalty does
not exceed 6 years”. (Sec. 9, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
13. When may a witness be allowed to use a memorandum?
A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything

written by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or
immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory
and he knew that the same was correctly stated in the writing; but in such case the
writing must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if
he chooses, cross-examine the witness upon it, and may read it in evidence. So,
also, a witness may testify from such a writing, though he retain no recollection of
the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the writing correctly stated the
Page 79 of 112
transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with caution. (Sec. 16,
Rule 132, ROC)
14. Define the two kinds of memoranda.
(a) Brief Memoranda - Summary that the party would make at the last minute;
lays down the principles and authorities.
(b) Witness Memoranda - A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory

respecting a fact, by anything written by himself or under his direction at the
time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time
when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was
correctly stated in the writing.
15. What is impeachment of a witness?
Impeachment of a witness is done when a witness may be impeached by the party

against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general
reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at
other times statements inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by evidence
of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the
witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense.
(Sec. 10, Rule 132)
Section 14 - present a previous statement that the witness has stated in the
witness stand.
By laying the predicate - basis for the presentation of an inconsistent

statement.
How?
1. The statements must be related to him

2. With the circumstances of the times and places of the the person, ask
if he really said those
3. Give the witness the opportunity to explain.
If the witness cannot explain-then that it the time that the witness is
impeached.
If written statement - show
Why don’t we have a separate rule on the evidence of the good character of
the witness?
To prove the competence of the witness. But the competence to testify of the
witness is presumed.
We are not required to prove the competence of a witness EXCEPT WHEN

they are being impeached that we prove the good moral character of a
witness.
CHILD WITNESS - the party presenting the child as a witness is not required
to prove that despite the minority of the witness, he is able to testify.
Party questioning the competence of a witness - HE WILL HAVE TO ASK

FOR THE COMPETENCY EXAMINATION.
Page 80 of 112
During the competency examination of a child witness judge will ask

questions to determine if the child knows the importance of telling the truth
on the witness stand.
Section 15 - exclusion and separation of witnesses.
GENERAL RULE: public may be allowed to witness

EXCEPTION: There are instances where the public may be excluded
The only persons who cannot be excluded from the court
1. A PARTY to the case-natural person

2. Juridical person-its representative
3. a person whose presence is essential to the presentation of the party’s
cause. – e.g., technical support.
4. Person authorized by the statute to be present. E.g., Child witness-the
parent of the child, facilitators.
Separation of witnesses- from each other.
The reason why other witnesses may be excluded from the proceedings is to
avoid duplication of testimony. Except in judicial affidavits.
Section 16 - A witness should testify on his own recollection, involves the

memory of the witness.
In instances that the witness forgets-the option is to use a memorandum.

Memorandum-reminder to a person
2 kinds of memoranda
1. Present recollection revive-refresh the memory,*used as a trigger only

- no need to authenticate the memorandum itself because it is not
being presented as a documentary evidence.
a. written or recorded
b. by him or under his direction
c. At the time the fact occurred
d. or immediately thereafter
e. Correctly written
2. Past recollection recorded-witness is still unable to recollect the fact

but he can prove that the fact therein are true. Basis: the memorandum
itself.
E.g., In case of physical injuries, the doctor witness who conducted

the medical exam on countless patients, the medical certificate he may
read the entries. Kasi wala syang maalala. His testimony will
authenticate the document.
Section 17 - applies also to documentary evidence.
If a portion of a conversation that was recorded is favorable to you, better not

to present the evidence. Because you may be required to present the
complete or entire document.
Section 18 - any writing that is shown to the witness may be examined.

Page 81 of 112
16. Who may be impeached as witnesses?
1. Adverse Party’s Witness (Sec. 11, Rule 132)

2. Unwilling or Hostile Witness (Sec. 13, Rule 132)
17. How may a witness be impeached?
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by

contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly,
or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his present, testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful
acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record
of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense. (Sec. 11, Rule 132)
18. What is the difference between “laying the predicate” and “laying the
foundation”?
Laying the Predicate Laying the Foundation

Used in Testimonial Evidence,
Used in Documentary evidence
specifically in impeaching a witness
Used in prior inconsistent statements Used to prove secondary evidence.
19. What is the One Day Examination of Witness Rule?
A witness has to be examined in one day only, shall be strictly adhered to subject
to the court’s discretion during the trial whether or not to extend the direct and/or
cross-examination for justifiable reasons. (OCA Circular No. 05-2012)
20. When may the testimony of a witness be expunged from the record?
Upon the request of the counsel in the court to expunge the testimony of the witness
on the record.
21. When may a witness be recalled?
A witness cannot be recalled without leave of court as the recalling of a witness is a

matter of judicial discretion. (Sec. 9, Rule 132) Except:
1. The examination has not been concluded.

2. If the recall of the witness was expressly reserved by a party with the approval
of the court.
IX. TESTIMONIAL DISQUALIFICATION AND TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
1. What is testimonial privilege?
Disqualification by reason of marriage. – During their marriage, the husband or the

wife cannot testify against the other without the consent of the affected spouse,
except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.
(Section 23, Rule 130)
2. What is testimonial disqualification?
- MISSING
3. What is the difference between testimonial privilege and testimonial

disqualification?
The testimonial privilege gives witnesses the right to refuse to testify thus he cannot
be compelled to testify but is not prohibited to testify while testimonial disqualification
bars or prohibits the witness to testify due to either absolute or relative
disqualification.
Disqualification of Witnesses:
4. What is an absolute disqualification from being a witness?
The proposed witness is prohibited to take the witness stand.
5. What is a relative disqualification from being a witness?
The proposed witness is prohibited to testify only on certain matters specified under
Secs. 23 and 24, Rule 130 due to interest or relationship, or to privileges of other
parties.
6. Disqualification by reason of marriage:
a. When may a witness be disqualified by reason of marriage

(requisites)?
1. One of the spouses is under trial

2. The spouses are married during the trial
3. The husband or the wife testifies against the other
4. The testimony is without the consent of the affected spouse (Sec. 23, Rule
130)
b. What are the other terms for this disqualification?
The following:
1. Spousal immunity rule

2. Marital disqualification rule.
c. What is the rationale behind this disqualification?

Page 83 of 112
Based on the common-law doctrine that husband and wife are but one person, and
consequently, that their interests are identical, and partly upon the ground that public
policy demands that those living in the marriage relation should not be compelled or
allowed to betray the mutual trust and confidence which such relation applies.
OTHER ANSWER:
The rule is intended to preserve the marriage relation as one of full confidence and
affection.
A marriage relation is regarded as more important to the public welfare than the
exigencies of lawsuits.
d. Until when may a witness be disqualified by reason of marriage?
During a valid marriage. If the marriage is legally dissolved, the spousal immunity
no longer applies.
7. Disqualification by reason of privileged communications:
a. What is a privileged communication?
Privileged communications are those whose disclosure upon the witness stand is
not compellable, or even allowable, owing to certain confidential relations existing
between the parties. The grounds of the exclusion are public policy and necessity.
(Peralta, 2020)
b. May the communication still be considered privileged even if it is

already in the hands of a third person?
The communication shall remain privileged, even in the hands of a third person who
may have obtained the information, provided that the original parties to the
communication took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality. (Sec. 24,
Rule 130)
c. What is the rationale behind this disqualification?
Privileged communications are excluded because their disclosure would be inimical

to a governmental interest or to a private relationship that courts and legislature
deem worthy of preserving of fostering. (Peralta, 2020)
d. In what relationships does this disqualification apply? Give the

requisites for the application of the disqualification in each
relationship. (REQUISITES FOR DISQUALIFICATION)
1. HUSBAND AND WIFE cannot be examined:
a. During or after the marriage;

b. As to any communication received in confidence by one from the
other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the
other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.
c. Absence of consent from the affected spouse.
2. LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP or at least reasonably believed by the

client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law.
Page 84 of 112
a. An attorney and client relation, or reasonable belief by the client that

a person is licensed to engage in the practice of law.
b. Confidential information that transpired in the course of professional
employment.
c. Absence of consent from the client to the attorney’s testimony, or
absence of both the client and the employer, in the event it is the
attorney’s secretary, stenographer or clerk, or other person assisting
the attorney, who is sought to be examined.
3. PHYSICIAN/PSYCHOTHERAPIST-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP or at least

reasonably believed by the patient to be authorized to practice medicine
or psychotherapy.
a. The physician is authorized to practice medicine, or the person

consulted is a psychotherapist or one reasonably believed by the
patient to be authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy.
b. The confidential communication was acquired for diagnosis or
treatment of the patient’s physical, mental or emotional condition,
including alcohol or drug addiction.
c. The privilege is invoked in a civil case.
4. PRIEST-PENITENT RELATIONSHIP
a. The communication must have been relayed to a minister, priest or

person reasonably believed to be so by the affected person,
consistent with the pious duty enjoined in the course of religious
discipline to which the minister or priest belongs and
b. The confidential communication or confession or advice was given in
a professional character.
c. Absence of consent of the affected person.
5. PUBLIC OFFICERS DURING OR AFTER HIS OR HER TENURE
a. It was made to a public officer in official confidence.

b. Public interest, as determined by the court, would suffer by the
disclosure of such communication made during or after his tenure.
e. When may a lawyer testify on privileged communications?
The following:
1. Crime-fraud clause.
If the services or advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or

aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably
should have known to be a crime or fraud.
2. Claimants through identical deceased client.
As to a communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim

through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by
testate or intestate or by inter vivos transaction.
3. Breach of duty by lawyer or client.

Page 85 of 112
As to a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer

to his or her client, or by the client to his or her lawyer.
4. Document attested by the lawyer.
As to a communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document

to which the lawyer is an attesting witness.
5. Joint clients.
As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two

(2) or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer
retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between any of
the clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise. [Sec. 24 (b) (i-v),
Rule 130]
Testimonial Privilege:
1. What is parental testimonial privilege?
No person may be compelled to testify against his children or other direct

descendants. (Sec. 25, Rule 130)
2. What is filial testimonial privilege?
No person may be compelled to testify against his parents or other direct

ascendants. (Sec. 25, Rule 130)
3. When is the parental or filial testimonial privilege not available to a

witness?
When such testimony is indispensable in a crime against that person or by one

parent against the other. (Sec. 25, Rule 130)
4. What are the requisites for the availment of testimonial privilege

relating to trade secrets?
1. A person cannot be compelled to testify about any trade secret,

2. The non-disclosure will not conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice.
NOTE: When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective measure
as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and of the parties and the furtherance
of justice may require. (Sec. 26, Rule 130)
5. What is a trade secret?
A trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool, mechanism or compound known

only to its owner and those of his employees to whom it is necessary to confide
it. The definition also extends to a secret formula or process not patented but known
only to certain individuals using it in compounding some article of trade having a
commercial value.
A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of

information that:
1. is used in one's business; and

Page 86 of 112
2. gives the employer an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors

who do not possess the information.
Generally, a trade secret is a process or device intended for continuous use in the
operation of the business, for example, a machine or formula, but can be a price list
or catalogue or specialized customer list. (Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell,
Inc.; G.R. No. 172835, December 13, 2007)
6. When is testimonial privilege relating to trade secrets not applicable?
The non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. (Sec. 26, Rule
130)
X. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
1. What is an admission?
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in

evidence against him or her. (Sec. 27, Rule 130)
OTHER ANSWER:
An admission is any statement of fact made by a party against his interest or

unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent with the facts
alleged by him. (Regalado, 2001)
NOTE: A party would presumably not state anything against his or her interest
unless it were true. (Peralta, 2020)
2. What is an extrajudicial admission?
Extra-judicial admission means an admission made in proceedings outside court.

Extrajudicial admissions are statements made, adopted or authorized by a party-
opponent beyond the parameters of formal legal proceedings. (E. Cleary et. al.)
NOTE:
A JUDICIAL ADMISSION is one so made in pleadings filed or in the progress of a

trial as to dispense with the introduction of evidence otherwise necessary to
dispense with some rule of practice necessary to be observed and complied with.
An EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSION is one made out of court.
The most important distinction between judicial and other admission, is that strictly,
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS are conclusive upon the party making them,
while OTHER ADMISSIONS are, as a rule and where the elements of estoppel are
not present, disputable.
3. What are the requisites for the admission of an extrajudicial admission?
The requisites for the admission of an extrajudicial admission are as follows:
1. The admission must be made outside the court or in a judicial proceeding

other than the one under consideration
2. It must be regarded as evidence and must be offered as such otherwise the
court will not consider it in deciding the case.
3. It requires formal offer for it to be considered.
4. It must not be self-serving
5. It is not subject to cross examination
4. How may an admission be made?
They may be made
(1) directly by a party to a lawsuit, either in or out of court; or

(2) implicitly, by the conduct of a party or the actions of someone else which
bind the party.
Page 88 of 112
5. Is an implied admission admissible in evidence?
Yes, in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission
of guilt.
6. What is the effect of an offer of compromise in criminal cases?
GENERAL RULE: Offer of compromise not admissible IN CRIMINAL CASES.
EXCEPTION: May be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. THOSE

INVOLVING
1. quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or

2. those allowed by law to be compromised. (Sec. 28, Rule 130)
7. What is the effect of a withdrawn plea of guilty?
Not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. (Sec.
28, Rule 130)
8. What is the effect of an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser

offense?
28, Rule 130)
9. May the statements made in the course of a plea bargaining which did
not result to a plea of guilty be admitted in evidence?
28, Rule 130)
10. What is the effect of an offer to pay medical, hospital, or other effects
occasioned by an injury?
Not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. (27a)
(Sec. 28, Rule 130)
11. What is the effect of an offer of compromise in civil cases?
IN CIVIL CASES, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is

not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
(REASON: to give the party the liberty to give statement that will lead to
settlement)
Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements made in compromise negotiations

admissible, except evidence otherwise discoverable or offered for another purpose,
such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue
delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution. (Sec.
28, Rule 130)
12. What is an admission by silence?

Page 89 of 112
Any act or declaration made in the presence and within the observation of a party
who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for
action or comment if not true, may be given in evidence against him. (Sec. 33, Rule
130)
13. What is an adoptive admission?
Adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person

when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something
stated or implied by the other person. (Republic v. Kenrick, G.R. No. 149576 August
8, 2006)
14. How is an adoptive admission made?
An adoptive admission is made through an act or declaration by a party indicating

the approval of statement made by the other.
15. How is an adoptive admission different from an admission by silence?
Adoptive admission is different from an admission by silence by the adoption of the

defendant knowing the content of an accusation against him of the truth of the
accusation by his words or conduct while admission by silence is by the failure of a
party in whose presence, here in for observation of an act of declaration is made to
assert that such act or declaration is untrue.
16. When may person be prejudiced by the admission of another?
Only when he consents thereto. Unless he assents thereto, a party to an action

cannot be affected by the admission of a person who does not occupy toward him
any relation of privity, agency, or joint interest.
17. What does “res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet” mean?
Things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to it.
18. What is the res inter alios acta rule?
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of

another, except as herein provided. (Section 29, Rule 130, Amended Rule on
Evidence)
19. What are the two branches of the res inter alios rule? Get all the terms
for these branches.
1. Admission by third party

2. Similar acts as evidence – also referred to as the Propensity Rule or General
Rule.
20. What are the exceptions to the first branch? Give the requisites for their
admission? (Secs. 30 to 32)
The exceptions to the application of Res Inter Alios Acta Rule are as follows:
1. Admission of a third person who is a co-partner, agent
Requisites:
Page 90 of 112
a. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party must be within

the scope of his authority;
b. The admission was made during the existence of the partnership or
agency; and
c. The existence of the partnership or agency is proven by independent
evidence other than such act or declaration. The Articles of
Incorporation or a Special Power of Attorney may be presented for
such purpose. (Suarez and De la Banda, 2000)
2. Admission by a co-conspirator
Requisites:
a. The declaration or act be made or done during the existence of the

conspiracy;
b. The declaration or act must relate to the purpose and object of the
conspiracy; and
c. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than the declaration
or act (evidence aliunde). (Sec. 31, Rule 130)
3. Admission by privies
Requisites:
a. One (successor in interest) derives title to property from another

(predecessor in interest) through any legal means of transfer;
b. A statement, act or declaration is made by the predecessor in interest
in relation to the property and while holding the title thereof; and
c. Said statement, act or declaration is evidence against his successor
in interest. (Sec. 32, Rule 130; Suarez and De la Banda, 2006)
4. Admission by silence
Requisites:
a. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other

person;
b. He must have had the opportunity to deny it (People v. Ranario, 49
Phil. 220);
c. He must have understood the statement;
d. He must have an interest to object, such that he would naturally have
done so, if the statement was not true;
e. The facts were within his knowledge; and
f. The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is
material to the issue. (People v. Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060, July 20,
1978; Sec. 33, Rule 130; Regalado, 2008)
21. What are the exceptions to the second branch?
The exceptions of the second kind or branch are:
1. Specific intent; or
2. Knowledge;
3. Identity;
4. Plan;
5. System;
Page 91 of 112
6. Scheme;
7. Habit;
8. Custom;
9. Usage; etc. (Metropolitan bank and Trust Company vs. Custodio, GR No.
173780, March 21, 2011)
22. For what purposes may a previous conduct be admitted in evidence?
Evidence of similar acts or occurrences:
1. compels the defendant to meet allegations that are not mentioned in the
complaint;
2. confuses him in his defense;
3. raises a variety of relevant issues; and
4. diverts the attention of the court from the issues immediately before it. (Cruz
v. CA, G.R. No. 126713, July 27, 1998)
23. May an admission in a counter-affidavit submitted during a preliminary

investigation be admitted in evidence?
Yes. A counter-affidavit voluntarily presented by the accused during the preliminary

investigation, even if made without the assistance of counsel, may be used as
evidence against the affiant. (Josue R. Ladiana v. People of the Philippines)
24. Give the differences between an admission and a confession.
DISTINCTION ADMISSION CONFESSION

The declaration of an
An act, declaration or accused acknowledging his
omission of a party as to a guilt of the offense charged,
Definition
relevant fact (Sec. 27, Rule or of any offense
130). necessarily included therein
(Sec. 34, Rule 130)
It is a voluntary
acknowledgment made by a
It is a statement by the
party of the existence of the
accused that he engaged in
How made truth of certain facts which
conduct which constitutes a
are inconsistent with his
crime (29 Am. Jur. 708).
claims in an action (Black‘s
Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.)
Cannot be implied, but
Whether it can be May be implied like should be a direct and
implied or not admission by silence. positive acknowledgment of
guilt.
Form Immaterial Must be express
Applies to civil transactions
Applies to
and to matters of fact in
Coverage acknowledgments of guilt in
criminal cases not involving
criminal cases.
criminal intent.
Emanates from a party, or a Effected by a party only and
Where does it emanate third person that can is equally admissible
from? prejudice a party in certain against co-defendants in
instances some cases.
Confessions
Page 92 of 112
25. What is a confession?
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of

any offense necessarily included therein (Sec. 34, Rule 130)
26. What are the different kinds of confession?
The following:
1. Judicial confession
2. Extra-Judicial Confession
3. Retracted Confession
4. Confession by co-accused
27. What are the requisites for the admission of an extrajudicial

confession?
The Court has consistently held that an extrajudicial confession, to be admissible,

must satisfy the following requirements:
1. the confession must be voluntary;

2. it must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent
counsel, preferably of the confessant's choice;
3. it must be express; and
4. it must be in writing."(People v. Cachuela et. al.)
28. What are interlocking confessions?
Extra-judicial confessions independently made without collusion which are identical

with each other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on
record are admissible, as circumstantial evidence, against the person implicated to
show the probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime.
[People v. Molleda, 86 SCRA 667, 701 (1978)]
29. What is the effect of an unaccepted written offer to pay a particular sum
of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal
property?
An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument

or specific personal property is, if rejected without valid cause, equivalent to the
actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property. (Sec. 36,
Rule 130)
XI. HEARSAY RULE
1. What is hearsay evidence?
Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the
competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is
sought to produce it. (Jose Espineli vs. People of the Philippines, GR No. 179535,
June 9, 2014)
Hearsay testimony is a testimony offered against a party who had no opportunity to

examine the witness. (People of the Philippines vs. Caballero, 24059-CR, June 13,
1964)
2. What are the forms of hearsay evidence?
A hearsay evidence may be oral or documentary.
Hearsay evidence is not limited to oral testimony. Written statements such as

affidavits and certificates are merely hearsay evidence where the makers thereof do
not appear to have taken the witness stand. (Sebastian vs. Romantic Catholic
Archbishop of Zamboanga, 60247-R, May 24, 1982)
3. What is the Hearsay Rule?
A witness may not testify on matters which he or she merely learned from others
either because said witness was told or read or heard those matters.
(Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Rodelio Alberto and Enrico Alberto Reyes, GR No.
194320, February 1, 2012)
4. Why is hearsay evidence excluded?
Hearsay evidence is excluded by the rules because the party against whom the
evidence is presented is deprived of its right and an opportunity to cross-examine
the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed.
5. What are the requisites of hearsay evidence?
The requisites of hearsay evidence are:
1. A statement, oral or written assertion, made by a person other than the

declarant;
2. The statement was made out-of-court;
3. The statement is offered to prove the fact asserted therein.
6. What is an independently relevant statement?
An independent relevant statement is a statement which is relevant to the fact in

issue independently of whether they are true or not.
7. What are the out-of-court statements of the declarant that may not be
considered hearsay? (2nd paragraph of Sec. 37)
A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is
subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is
Page 94 of 112
a) inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given under oath subject
to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a
deposition;
b) consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express
or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper
influence or motive; or
c) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her. (n)
Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule:
8. Dying Declaration
a. What is a dying declaration?
An ante-mortem statement which refers to the cause and surrounding

circumstances of the declarant’s death, made under the consciousness of ab
impending death. (People of the Philippines vs. Lugtu, L-52237, September 30,
1981, 108 SCRA 89)
b. What are requisites of a dying declaration?
The following are the requisites of a dying declaration:
1. The declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of

the declarant’s death;
2. At the time the declaration is made, the declaration is under a consciousness
of an impending death;
3. The declarant is a competent witness;
4. The declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or
parricide, in which the declarant is the victim. (People of the Philippines vs.
Jose Belmar Umapas, GR No. 215742, March 22, 2017)
c. Why is a dying declaration considered hearsay?
A dying declaration is considered a hearsay because the party against whom the
declaration is presented is deprived of its right and an opportunity to cross-examine
the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed.
d. What is the guarantee of trustworthiness in this exception?
- MISSING
9. Statement of Decedent or person of unsound mind
- MISSING
a. What are the requisites for the application of this exception?
b. What is the guarantee of trustworthiness in this exception?
10. Declaration against interest
A declaration against interest is a declaration which is at variance with the

declarant’s property rights. (De la Cruz vs. De la Cruz, 272450R, July 21, 1964)
Page 95 of 112
The following are the requisites for the admissibility of declaration against interest:
1. That the declarant is dead or unable to testify;

2. That the declaration relates to a fact against the interest of a declarant;
3. That at the time he made said declaration, the declarant was aware that the
same was contrary to his interest;
4. That the declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to
be true. (Ong vs. CA, et al., GR No. L-47674, October 30, 1980)
b. What is a declaration against penal interest?
A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to

exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly
indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. (38a) (Sec. 40, Rule 130)
c. What is the guarantee of trustworthiness in this exception?
- MISSING
11. Act or declaration against pedigree
Act and declaration about pedigree will be an exception to the hearsay evidence
rule when concurred by the following requisites:
1. That the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is the subject of
inquiry by birth, adoption, or marriage, or in the absence thereof, with whose
family he or she was so intimately associated as to be likely to have accurate
information concerning his or her pedigree.
2. That such relationship may be shown by evidence other than the declaration;
3. That declaration was made before death or inability of the declarant to testify;
4. That the declarant is dead or outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines or
unable to testify.
DISCUSSION:
Applying the example; #4 requisite, the grandmother (declarant) is dead before the
controversy before this case. # 1, the issue is filiation of Anna and the paternity of
Pedro. #3, grandmother declared that Anna was the daughter of Pedro before she
died. #2, Grandmother’s will stated that Pedro is one of the heirs.
Why would the fact that evidence proven other than the statement makes the
statement trustworthy?
Budge of Trustworthiness = this is the reason why the court would believe the
statement despite the fact that it’s not the declarant himself who is seating on the
witness stand. But because we have this, siguro totoo ung sinasabi nya. Is it really
the fact that the relationship was proven? Or is it the relationship itself? Because
the statement is really specific, it would pertain to the pedigree of a person. And by
pedigree we mean, it include the relationship, marriage, birth…. (Sec 41, Rule 130).
What is the common factor?

Page 96 of 112
 Relationship =
 Family genealogy = an account of the descent of a person, family, or group
from an ancestor or from older forms. Family tree
 Birth of a relative
 Adoption of a relative=
 Marriage of a relative
 in the absence thereof, with whose family he or she was so intimately
associated as to be likely to have accurate information concerning his
or her pedigree = example: nanny, driver, paramour, long time maids
 Death of a relative
 dates when and the places where these facts occurred
 names of the relatives
Since they belong to the same family, then most likely, totoo ung sinasabi nya since
he is familiar because of the relationship. It is not just because the relationship was
proven by evidence other than the statement, this is not your badge of
trustworthiness. The badge of trustworthiness is the relationship itself between the
declarant and the person whose pedigree is being established.
Even if the declarant is already dead, if it satisfies all those requisites then it will be
considered as hearsay but it is admissible because there is that badge of
trustworthiness. The declarant is expected to know all of those things about the
person.
The relationship between the declarant and whose pedigree is in issue should either
be by birth, by adoption or by marriage. However, (NEW: “with whose family he or
she was so intimately associated as to be likely…”) even if it’s not a relative by blood
or by reason of adoption or by reason of marriage, Sec 41 applies.
As to criminal case, for example parricide, would Sec 41 be admitted in evidence?

YES. To prove the relationship of the illegitimate son and the deceased father.
b. What is pedigree? What are included in the term?
Pedigree refers to an account or register of a line of ancestors. (Black’s Law

Dictionary)
Pedigree includes relationship, family genealogy, birth (of the relative), marriage (of
the relative), death (of the relative), the dates when and the places where these
facts occurred (of the relative), and the names of the relatives. It embraces also the
facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. (Section 41, Rule 130,
Amended Rules on Evidence)
The act or declaration of a person deceased or unable to testify, in respect to the

pedigree of another person related to him or her by birth[,] adoption, or marriage or,
in the absence thereof, with whose family he or she was so intimately associated as
to be likely to have accurate information concerning his or her pedigree, may be
received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and the relationship
between the two [(2)] persons is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration.
Ex: Anna filed a claim for compulsory recognition under the civil code. Anna claimed
that he is an illegitimate child of Pedro but Pedro denied such claim. In the trial of
the case, there were two witnesses who testified in favor of Anna. These witnesses
are relatives of Pedro, they said that their Grandmother (mother of Pedro) told them
that Anna is indeed an illegitimate daughter of Pedro; that Anna’s mother is the
Page 97 of 112
sweetheart of Pedro and was usually seen together at their house. It was also said
that Pedro introduced Anna’s mother as his gf. In the will of the grandmother, Pedro
was mentioned as one of the heirs. SO the issue here is the filiation of Anna and
the paternity of Pedro.
- MISSING
12. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
The requisites for the admissibility of reputation regarding pedigree are that the
tradition were:
1. through testimony in open court of a witness who must be a member of the

family either by consanguinity or affinity;
2. through entries in:
a. Family bible;
b. Family books or charts;
c. Engravings on rings; or
d. Family portraits and the like.
b. What is a family reputation?
c. What is a family tradition?
13. Common reputation
Common reputation as an exception to hearsay evidence rule must be concurred

by the following requisites:
1. That the matter to which the reputation referred to is of public or general

interest more than 30 years old;
2. That reputation is ancient;
3. That the reputation is one formed in the community interested;
4. That it existed before any controversy has arisen in the matter sought to be
proved thereby; and
5. That common reputation is with respect to boundaries of or customs affecting
lands in the community and reputation as to events of general history
important to the community or the marriage or moral character.
DISCUSSION:
Same as in Section 43 (common reputation), there is no particular declarant.
Ex: School in La Trinidad which claims to be the owner of the entirety of Trinidad
and filed cases of the occupants of the land. There’s a river that divides the particular
parcel of lands, there are gardens, so the boundary is clear. But still, the school
Page 98 of 112
claims all of the lands beyond the river. The defendants state that the river is the
boundary of the property donated by their forefathers to the school which was
commonly known by people.
The badge of trustworthiness is that you can use common reputation to prove
boundaries affecting lands. Customs affecting lands. reputation as to events of
general history important to the community. or respecting marriage or moral
character.
The requisites for admission of common reputation:
1. The common reputation existed previous to the controversy. Ex: marriage of

Gabi and Sharon
2. The reputation refers to boundaries of or customs affecting land in the
community and reputation as to events of general history important to the
community or the marriage or moral character.
Ex: the people know that Gabi and Sharon got married.
Reputation: in public, Sharon and Gabi treated each other as couple.
What is to prove is the marriage of Gabi and Sharon. Because the controversy here
is that Sharon ran away after she can’t pay her debt from the neighbor. So the
neighbor went after Gabi because he and Sharon are married.
The hearsay rule refers to the competency of evidence of the statement, that’s why
we’re going to determine if the common reputation which is being offered to prove
the existence of the marriage is competent, if it is not excluded by the Rules because
under the Rules of Evidence, hearsay is not admissible in evidence, that goes into
the competency of the statement. That is what will make it inadmissible. By
discussing the exceptions, we are looking at the admissibility of evidence only more
particularly at the competency of the evidence.
If what you’re thinking is that why is there a need to present common reputation if
the best evidence to prove marriage is the certificate of marriage. That is not on the
admissibility of evidence. That is delving into the evidentiary weight of the evidence.
If ever you are answering questions as to whether the evidence is admissible or not
then you just stick with the relevancy and competency, do not go to the weight,
because you’ll get confused.
Ex: common reputation to prove moral character.
In rape cases, e.g. that girl is known by the community as a loose woman.
They will assail the moral character of the victim, which is prohibited under the rape
shield act. In the amended Rules, it might now seem that you can prove the
character evidence of the victim. You can present the common reputation to prove
the moral character of a person.
Ex: customs affecting land in the community:
Sometimes, in order to set boundaries, they would bury big rocks to set the
boundaries, and in case of land disputes, you can dig out the big rocks.
The concept of stewardship, in some places, if you are the owner of parcel
of land downhill, you will have the right of the hilly portion where you have trees,
which is the presumed source of water in the land. By custom, you are considered
as steward of that parcel of land above your parcel of land. Taban System. So if that
Page 99 of 112
place is known by the community to be the Taban of the lot owned by X then, that
would be admitted as evidence of ownership of that parcel of land uphill.
Ex: Common reputation as to events of general history important to the community:
PVAO filed for Rectification of the history of the world war 2 where it was
written that the end of the reign of the Japanese in the Philippines was due to the
surrender of Gen. Yamashita. However, in truth, Gen. Yamashita was captured by
the operative so the US Armed Forces in the Northern Luzon as part of Cordillera
Guerilla. PVAO presents collective testimonies of still surviving local veterans from
the cordillera who only have stories from memory to tell. Also, people presented that
there was a shrine in Ifugao where the capture of Yamashita was written. So, here
is X who came to sell his house and lot to where Yamashita surrendered that’s why
you bought it. It happened that there was no significance of the house to the
surrender of Yamashita. So, you file a case for estafa or damages. In order for you
to prove that the house is not the place where Yamashita surrendered, then you
present the evidence, common reputation where Yamashita surrendered.
b. What is a common reputation?
- MISSING
c. What common reputations may be admitted under this exception?
- MISSING
- MISSING
14. Part of the Res Gestae
a. What does res gestae mean?
Res Gestae refers to statements, otherwise, inadmissible in evidence because they

are hearsay, which are sufficiently contemporaneous with the act they accompany
and explain, admissible in evidence as part of res gestae. (Topacio vs. Paredes, 23
Phil 255)
Res= thing
Gestae = done
b. What are included as parts of the res gestae?
Statements made by a person while startling occurrence is taking place or

immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof,
may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.
Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a

legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae. (People of the
Philippines vs. Gilberto Villarico, et al., GR No. 158362, April 4, 2011)
DISCUSSION: This is clearly a hearsay statement because the person who is giving
the statement is not sitting on the witness stand. The witness who is sitting in the
witness stand is simply repeating the statement. (you should be familiar with the
definition of hearsay)
Page 100 of 112
c. What is a spontaneous statement? What are the requisites for its

admission?
A spontaneous statement is a statement made by a person while a starting

occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect
to the circumstances thereof.
REQUISITES:
1. A spontaneous statement made by a person

2. The statement was made while a startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof.
DISCUSSION:
Injected badge of trustworthiness = the badge of trustworthiness here: it is the

fact that the witness or the declarant is not able to contrive the statement because
it was made under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence. That is what
will make it credible, the fact that the declarant did not have the opportunity to think
of a falsehood.
Ex: immediately, after witnessing a robbery, X called the police and reported in
detail all that transpired including the identity of the culprit. During trial, the police
officer testified as to the story told to him by X because the latter could not testify in
court. The testimony of the policeman is admissible as part of res gestae and that X
reported out of instinct.
It is not the declarant who is talking but the startling occurrence. That is why
the declarant could not have contrived or fabricated the statement because in the
first place, it did not come from his mind. It is not the product of his mind but it is the
product of the startling occurrence. It is the product of the excitement caused by the
occurrence. Stress of excitement.
Another, husband and wife were walking along Session Rd. the A, husband’s
girlfriend tripped near them. Husband shouted “ay, babe”. So, wife filed for
concubinage against husband and is in the witness stand testifying against him. Is
the statement hearsay? YES. Is it admissible? The startling event here is the tripping
of A. (The declarant is the husband so it must be startling to him). The statement
was made immediately after the tripping. It was an automatic response “ay babe”
he didn’t think that A is a pretty girl and I would want to call her babe, but instead
directly reacted out of instinct “ay babe”. Does it relate to the startling occurrence?
No. “ay, babe” does not relate to the tripping of the girl. The statement should be
made with respect to the circumstances of the startling occurrence. Meaning, the
startling occurrence must be one of the issues in the case. This “ay babe” was
uttered under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence but because it was
not made with respect to the circumstances of the startling occurrence. Objection
your honor, it is hearsay, thus, sustain the objection (if otherwise, you overrule the
objection). The last requisite does was not met so it’s not part of res gestae so it’s
really hearsay so it is inadmissible.
What is a Circumstance?
Another example, suppose A was walking in the park, and he was suddenly
hit by a person behind him with a rock and that caused his head to crack open. A
died instantly. B, the bystander who happened to witness the incident cried out “X
Page 101 of 112
did it! He hit him with a rock. Since B cannot be found when the police came, L, who
heard B’s statements, used B’s statement to testify. So part of re gestae.
d. What is a verbal act? What are the requisites for its admission?
A verbal act is a statement accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue,

and giving it legal significance.
REQUISITES:
1. A statement was made;

2. The statement accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and
giving it legal significance.
DISCUSSION:
Hearsay but admissible because it is considered a verbal act. It becomes part of the
act which it accompanies. There should be an equivocal act.
Equivocal act = means an act which is capable of two or more interpretations. It is

the statement given by the declarant that would clarify what interpretation should be
given to that verbal act. It would give it a legal significance.
The badge of trustworthiness here is

The utterance is part of the act
Ex: When an officer arrests X by placing his hands on X’s shoulder. Thus, taking
him in custody by saying, “I arrest you in the name of the law”. The act of placing
the hand on the shoulder is by itself equivocal because it might just be a friendly
gesture but the words that accompany the act are what gives it legal significance. A
witness testifies stating that he saw the police putting his hand on X’s shoulder and
heard the police saying “I arrest you in the name of the law”.
Ex of unequivocal act: You need the statement for the equivocal act to be clear
that’s why the statement becomes part of the act and that what makes it admissible.
e. What is the guarantee of trustworthiness in this exception?
- MISSING
15. Records of regularly conducted business activity
REQUISITES for the application of this exception:
1. There is a memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events,

conditions, opinions, or diagnoses made as a regular practice.
2. It is made at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information
by a person with knowledge thereof.
3. It was kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity.
4. All of it was shown in the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness.
DISCUSSION:
Why do we consider this as hearsay? Because the witness will be testifying the case
on a memorandum, report or record or compilation (witness wasn’t the one who
Page 102 of 112
made them on data of events, conditions, which he does not have personal
knowledge of but he will be testifying based on them.
b. Give an example for this exception.
You have 2 persons here,
1. The invisible witness who has personal knowledge and who has
made/compile the record by writing… and other similar means of recording.
This is hearsay because he was not the one on the witness stand.
2. The custodian of that record. He will be testifying as to the procedure/ flow
including the content.
Ex: In the case of illegal recruitment wherein the recruitment agency was charged
for illegal recruitment for charging higher agency fee that was allowed by the law. X,
the victim, was given the receipt for payment of agency fee. But X here lost his
receipt. To prove that the agency fee was charging higher fee. X, saw that another
receipt was given to another applicant and the agency recorded the transaction in a
book. The custodial of the book may testify on the entries even if he is not the one
who made the entries on the book to prove that the agency charged high agency
fee.
The fact that the records were made in the regular course of business and was a
regular practice so there is a presumption that the entries are true.
RATIONALE: In order for the company to keep track of their business activities.
This is very useful because in most businesses, hindi nagtatagal ang mga tao.
Ex: Pedro will make a cost estimate for a car, and he will give it to the management.
But Pedro was removed so the next that will testify will be the custodian who holds
the record?
Will you consider this as a record of a regularly conducted business activity? YES.
16. Entries in official records
SECTION 46: Official Record
REQUISITES:
1. There must be entries made by a public officer made in the performance of

duties or by a person in the performance of duty specially enjoined by law.
2. The entrant has personal knowledge of the facts stated in the entry.
DISCUSSION:
OFFICIAL RECORD = record wherein the entries were made by a public officer in
the Philippines in the performance of his duty; the same as a public document
Public Official = persons who are elected or appointed

Page 103 of 112
The entries in the official record are considered prima facie evidence of the facts
stated therein. = there is a presumption that the data recorded therein is presumed
true and accurate.
Who testifies here?
The document speaks for itself. No second witness
When it comes to document, you only need to present a sponsor for purposes of
authentication. But if it is already an official record
In a hearsay, there are two persons involved:
1. Invisible witness = the person who made the entry

2. Visible witness = the person testifying in the witness stand other than the
entrant.
1. Birth certificate is considered an official record. Registrar is the entrant.

(made by a public officer)
2. (by a person in the performance of duty specially enjoined by law): midwife
in relation to entries in the birth certificate
That the record/ document is made with the sense of official duty and it is also made
in correct entries because of fear of being penalized if inputting the wrong entries.
17. Commercial lists and the like
1. It is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation;

2. Such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published
compilation;
3. Said compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that
occupation; and
4. It is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation.
Section 47. Commercial lists and the like. – Evidence of statements of matters of
interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical,
or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any
relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged
in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. (45)
1. Market quotations seen in insurance, car industries, hotels.

2. Investments in stocks (quotation price seen in a newspaper)
3. Dollar exchange rates.
4. Mortality table in insurance.
Regularly used or relied upon by the people in this course of business.

Page 104 of 112
18. Learned treatises
Section 48. Learned treatises. – A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a

subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of
a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the
subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or
pamphlet is recognized in his or her profession or calling as expert in the subject.
(46a)
REQUISITE:
1. There is a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history,

law, science, or art and
2. The court takes either judicial notice or a witness expert in the subject
testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise recognized in his or
her profession or calling as expert in the subject.
DISCUSSION:
What would be taken judicial notice of?
The writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of

history, law, science, or art recognized in his or her profession or calling as expert
in the subject because this would provide the guarantee of trustworthiness. The fact
that the author is the expert in the field.
Ex: A jargon that was defined by Justice Reyes in his book, and present the Book
of Paras to clarify the bounds of the term
When we talk about the guarantee/ badge of trustworthiness, these are the facts
established before you can present your hearsay evidence.
When we talk about the admission of evidence which should otherwise be

inadmissible, we talk about laying the predicate.
Although hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, it may be admitted if you’re

able to lay the predicate.
What composes the predicate in the admission of hearsay evidence?
Badges/ guarantees of trustworthiness.
Like in Sec. 48, you’re going to present a witness, not to testify what is written
in the published treaties but to testify as to the expertise of the writer or the
author of the statement or the court may just motu proprio take judicial notice.
19. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding

Page 105 of 112
1. A testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or out of the Philippines or

who cannot, with due diligence, be found therein, or is unavailable or
otherwise unable to testify was taken;
2. Said testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding
(judicial or administrative);
3. The former case or proceeding should involve the same parties in the same
subject matter; and
4. The adverse party must have had the opportunity to cross examine the
deceased witness or unavailable witness.
Section 49. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. – The testimony

or deposition of a witness deceased or out of the Philippines or who cannot, with
due diligence, be found therein, or is unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given
in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties
and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had
the opportunity to cross-examine him or her. (47a)
b. What is the guarantee of trustworthiness in this exception?
The guarantee/badge of trustworthiness is NOT that fact that the witness or the
person was cross-examined. It is the opportunity/ availability of the opportunity
to cross-examine the witness. So, it doesn’t mean to say that the witness was
cross-examined, automatically the testimony or the position will not be admissible
under Sec. 49. What you should look into is the opportunity. If that opportunity was
not taken, then it doesn’t mean to say that it will not fall under Sec. 49.
We should remember the 2nd paragraph of Sec 37, because there can be a similarity
between this one. I can ask the question on that.
This is hearsay because the witness is not given by the witness on the witness stand
although he was also the declarant. In this particular section, same declarant, same
person on the witness stand.
HEARSAY = any statement not given by the declarant while sitting on the witness
stand
The statement here can be found by the disposition of the witness who is either
dead or unable to testify because he is outside the Philippines or because he can
no longer talk or cannot be found.
Who will present his testimony?
Ex: Pedro’s testimony in another case which was used in the current state. For as
long as the adverse party had the opportunity to cross-examine him/her.
Exceptions to the hearsay rule: Sections 38 to 49. For as long as the examining
party can lay the predicate for the presentation of hearsay statement, it’s mandatory
for the court to admit the statement in evidence, as long as the requisites were
complied with.
20. Residual Exception

Page 106 of 112
1. The statement must possess circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness

akin to specific hearsay exceptions;
2. The statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;
3. The statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any
other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts;
4. Admission of the evidence will serve the purpose of the rules and justice;
5. The proponent notifies the opponent of the intention to offer the statement,
with details of the name and address of the declarant, sufficiently in advance
of the hearing, or pre-trial conference as prelude to trial, for the adverse
party’s fair opportunity to meet the intention.
Section 50. Residual exception. – A statement not specifically covered by any of

the foregoing exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of
trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that (a) the statement is offered
as evidence of a material fact; (b) the statement is more probative on the point for
which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through
reasonable efforts; and (c) the general purposes of these [R]ules and the interests
of justice will be best served by admission of the statement into evidence. However,
a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent makes
known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial
stage in the case of a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse party with a fair
opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent’s intention to off er the statement
and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant. (n)
DISCUSSION:
SECTION 50: Discretionary in the part of the court even if you can prove all the
requisites that is needed.
Residual exception: remaining exception after specific exceptions were given.
REQUISITES:
1. Advance notice requirements = before you are allowed to present a hearsay

statement as a residual exception to a hearsay rule, you have to file a motion
to present hearsay evidence under the residual exception to the hearsay rule.
Allege the hearsay statement, the party or the defendant intends to present
the following in evidence. put the witness, name and address of the declarant,
set it for hearing.
= you are notifying the adverse party in advance that you intend to present
hearsay statement which is otherwise not admissible under the exceptions.
You are giving that adverse party the opportunity to object to the presentation
of evidence.
2. The statement being presented should have an equivalent circumstance of

guarantees of trustworthiness.
3. Prove that the statement has more probative on point for which it is offered
than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through
reasonable efforts; the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact. =
requisite of necessity of statement. You need to present statement because
it is evidence of a material fact and it is necessary because it is more
probative on the point….
Ex: A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions,

Page 107 of 112
The statement is offered as evidence of a material fact-that will be the requisite of

necessity of the statement.
Why present the statement? Because it is evidence of material fact and it is

necessary because it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any
other evidence that the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts.
Statement which cannot be admitted by evidence under any of the exceptions.

-can still be offered under sec. 50
1. Dying declaration-
Statement is being offered not in the case involve in the death of the
declarant.
May the hearsay statement be admitted as a dying declaration? No, because

it is not an evidence surrounding the cause of the death. But yes under
residual exception to the hearsay rule.
What if the question is, Is the statement admissible in evidence?

Discretionary
NOTE: If ever there is a missing requisite, if you will be asked, is the evidence or
statement admissible in evidence as a declaration against interest, but if there is a
facts in the question pertaining to the residual exception then yun ang tignan mo.
NOTE: In order for the evidence to fall under section 50, it should also be proved
that it does not fall under the other exceptions.
In illegal possession of firearms- the gun is the corpus delicti-without the gun there
is no crime, hearsay evidence is not admissible.
In evidence it is not enough that the witness is credible, the testimony must be
credible.
c. What is meant by “guarantee of trustworthiness”?
- MISSING
XII. OPINION RULE AND CHARACTER EVIDENCE
A. Opinion Rule
1. What is an opinion?
An opinion is an inference or conclusion of a witness based or drawn from the facts

established.
2. What is the difference between an opinion and a conclusion?
An opinion is a mere inference not necessarily based on facts while a conclusion is

the result of considering all the facts surrounding the case.
3. What is the difference between an opinion and an inference?
An opinion is an inference not necessarily based on facts, while an inference is a

judgment or conclusion based on the consideration of the facts.
4. Why is an opinion generally not admissible?
Because the witness must testify to facts within his knowledge and may not state
his opinion even on his examination.
5. When is the opinion of an ordinary witness admissible?
Opinion of an ordinary witness (Sec. 53, Rule 130, ROC)
The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in
evidence regarding —
a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;

b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition
or appearance of a person.
B. Character Evidence
DISCUSSION:
Reputation is that person’s standing in the community as viewed by other people.
Generally, character evidence is not admissible if you are offering it as proof of the
commission of an action which is in conformity with that particular character on a
particular occasion. Propensity rule.
Ex: character evidence not admissible: in a case of murder, X was accused in killing
A. if you are going to present character evidence on X being violent to prove that it
was X to prove that it was X who killed A.
Ex: May be admissible: When the accused is known to be a recidivist in robbery.

He was known as a petty theft before. Part of evidence in chief, not a rebuttal.
Page 109 of 112
If what you’re going to prove is the commission of the crime itself then that character
would not be admissible. Except in cases in which character or a trait of
character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim or defense,
proof may also be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct, then
it may be admissible. (presentation of evidence in chief)
Ex: where character of a person is an element (accused): Character evidence is

dishonesty. Deceit is an element of estafa. In a case of estafa, where Ms. L claimed
that Mr. Q is a fraud for giving. Ms. L 3 bouncing checks as payment for the house
and lot sale. Ms. L presented a witness stating that Mr. Q is a fraudulent person by
specifically expounding that in the past, he also received bouncing checks from Mr.
Q.
1. What is character?
The possession by a person of certain qualities of mind or morals, distinguishing

him from others. It can be equated with reputation since in the field of evidence,
character means the opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the
common report of the people who are acquainted with him (Bouvier’s Law
Dictionary)
Character is defined as that “combination of properties, qualities, or peculiarities

which distinguishes one person from others.”
2. What is character evidence?
- MISSING
3. Why is character evidence generally not admissible?
The reason is that the evidence of a person’s character does not prove that such
person acted in conformity with such character or trait in a particular occasion. (Sec.
54, Rule 130)
4. When is character evidence allowed in criminal cases? in civil cases?
In criminal Cases:
1. The character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in

any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
DISCUSSION:
The prosecution on the bad character of the evidence may be

presented if on rebuttal to prove that it is very possible for the person
to commit an offense.
Ex: Offended party in rape shield clause. (Section 6 RA 8505). You

cannot present evidence that the victim is promiscuous because the
evidence presented by the accused is consensual. Under the rape
shield clause, that character evidence is inadmissible unless the court
finds it material and relevant to the case. In this case, it is relevant if
what is being proved is the existence of the consent.
When is it essential?
Page 110 of 112
Ex: in cases of self-defense.
Ex: offended party: In cases of theft, X was the offended party, he

called Y, driver of the taxi. X’s phone was gone so X filed for a case of
theft. Judge issued a warrant so Y got caught. Y returned the phone
to the police. Y said that X gave his phone to Y. and alleged that X is
very generous and kind to Y, X gives Y all sorts of things. Is this
character evidence admissible? Yes. It tends to establish the
improbability because the contention is not taken against the consent.
It is admissible.
For as long as it tends to establish the probability of the offense. Ex:

seduction. Virginity pertains to the purity of a person. You are going to
present evidence that she is not chaste or that she is chaste
(improbability, probability)
2. The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
DISCUSSION:
The character evidence will be admissible only when the defense

offered the good moral character of the accuse as the defense, then
the prosecution can enter the bad moral character.
In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when
pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
DISCUSSION:
Ex: on the part of the defendant. In a complaint for damages arising

from breach of promise of marriage. Mr. Z may justify the breach of
promise by presenting evidence that he discovered Ms. A to be of
unchaste character. Hence, he refused to marry her.
Ex: on the part of the plaintiff: In a complaint for damages arising from
breach of promise of marriage. Ms. X may justify the breach of promise
by presenting evidence that he discovered Mr. Z is infidel. Hence, he
refused to marry her.
In Civil and Criminal Cases:
Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character
has been impeached. (Sec. 54, Rule 130, ROC)
DISCUSSION:
Ex: when it comes to a witness, you are not required to prove his good
character as a witness. But you will be allowed to present evidence on
his good character. Specially in connection with his truthfulness of his
character, if his character has been impeached/ if his credibility has
been destroyed. When it comes to impeachment of witness, you go to
Rule 132 Section 11. Either you present contradictory evidence; or
you can also present evidence that his or her reputation, truth, honesty
or integrity is bad. This is character evidence.
Page 111 of 112
When will you be allowed to present evidence of a bad character of a

witness? If you are going to impeach that witness.
When will you be allowed to present evidence of the good character

of a witness? If you are going to rehabilitate that witness. Who will you
rehabilitate? A witness who has been impeached. The last part is what
would comprise the character evidence. You can present testimony to
prove the reputation of the person. Or you can present testimony on
the for of an opinion of an ordinary witness or an expert witness.
Expert witness
ex: Psychological capacity (a character).
On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific

instances of conduct. Ex: deceit , in the crime of estafa (mentioned
above)
5. How is character proven?
The evidence of character is proven by testimony regarding reputation or testimony

in the form of an opinion [Section 54 (c), Rule 130, Rules on Evidence]
6. What are rape shield laws? What is a sexual abuse shield? Are these in
conflict with Sec. 54 (a)(1) of Rule 130?
What are rape shield laws?
They provide that evidence of the past sexual conduct or reputation of

the victim is not admissible. Unless, such evidence is material and relevant
to the case
OTHER ANSWER:
Rape shield laws are statutes which limit the ability of the defendant’s
counsel to introduce the accuser’s sexual history as evidence during a rape
trial and therefore can prevent the accuser from being discredited by
information that is not relevant to the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
As defined under Sec 6 of Republic Act 8505:
Sec. 6. Rape shield: In prosecutions for rape, evidence of

complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation
shall not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that
such evidence is material and relevant to the case.
What is a sexual abuse shield?
It provides that the following evidence shall not be admissible:
a. In a child abuse case, any evidence tending to prove that the offended party
has engaged in other sexual behavior is not admissible.
b. Evidence tending to prove the other sexual predisposition of the offended
party is not admissible. (Sec. 30, Rule on Examination of Child Witness)
OTHER ANSWER:
Page 112 of 112
Sexual abuse shield is a rule stating the inadmissibility in any criminal

proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse of the following:
1. Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual
behavior; and
2. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
Exception:
Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove

that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other
physical evidence shall be admissible. (Sec 30, Republic Act No. 7610)
- MISSING

Summary Evidence 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Summary Evidence 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 112

A. What are the different sources of our rules on evidence?

The different sources of our Rules on Evidence are as follows:

FINAL EXAM – ENUMERATE ALL 97 RULES FOUND IN CONSTITUTION. - EMPHASIS/

1. Article III, Section 1, Due Process of Law

2. Article III, Section 1, Equal Protection of Laws

3. Article III, Section 2

4. Article III, Section 3

(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except

5. Article III, Section 6

6. Article III, Section 7

The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be

7. Article III, Section 8

8. Article III, Section 10

No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

9. Article III, Section 11

10. Article III, Section 12

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof

11. Article III, Section 13

12. Article III, Section 14

13. Article III, Section 15

14. Article III, Section 16

15. Article III, Section 17

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

16. Article III, Section 18

17. Article III, Section 21

18. Article VIII, Section 1

19. Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph (5)

Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional

20. Article VIII, Section 14

C. Give ten rules of evidence that are found in substantive laws.

1. Any confession, admission or statement obtained as a result of torture shall be

2. Any listened to, intercepted, and recorded communications, messages,

thereof, or any information or fact contained therein, including their existence,

3. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance,

4. Child witness law. (R.A. No. 7610)

5. Evidence is not admissible if obtained in violation of Law on Secrecy of Bank

8. Art. 12 – A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence.

9. Art. 1457 – An implied trust may be proved by oral evidence.

12. Art. 1820 – An admission or representation made by any partner concerning

D. How should rules of evidence be construed? - EMPHASIS

THEY ARE ONLY MAINLY APPLIED IN COURT.

But our Rules of Court may be applied or adopted in administrative cases

II. GENERAL CONCEPTS

Evidence is the means, sanctioned in the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in judicial

B. What is proof? - EMPHASIS

It is a fact that demonstrates something that is real or true.

Proof is the effect or end result of evidence.

C. What are the differences between evidence and proof?

The BURDEN OF PROOF STAYS IN THE PROSECUTION.

D. What is the difference between factum probans and factum probandum? -

ultimate Factum Probandum Factum Probans evidentiary

E. What is quantum of evidence?

It is the amount of evidence needed.

1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

F. What is the quantum of evidence required in:

homicide 1. Criminal cases

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is

The quantum of evidence now required in preliminary investigation is such evidence

7. Finding probable cause for a warrantless arrest

8. Finding probable cause for a warrantless search

G. What is burden of proof?

It is also called onus probandi.

H. What is burden of evidence? Reference: 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence;