EVIDENCE CASE DOCTRINE COMPILATION

General Provisions: Rule 128, Section 1 and 2

Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA
 RA4200 or "An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping
Hoffman v. US
and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of
 The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that
Communication, and for other purposes" expressly makes
would in themselves support a conviction under a federal
such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence.
criminal statute, but likewise embraces those which would
 The Supreme Court emphasized that the RTC and CA
furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute
erroneously admitted in evidence the tape recordings in
the claimant for a federal crime.
contravention with what was provided under RA 4200 or
 Class discussion: the test is W/N the answer would create
the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
linkage taking into account the nature of the crime which
 Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone
the investigation was conducting.
conversations allowed the recording of the same, the
inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under
People v. Lauga*
Rep. Act No. 4200.
 The SC ruled that the extrajudicial confession of appellant,
to the bantay bayan which was taken without counsel is
inadmissible in evidence. Barangay-based volunteer
organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the case
Bantolino v. Coca-Cola Bottlers*
of the bantay bayan, are recognized by the local
 Administrative bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the
government unit to perform functions relating to the
technicalities of law and procedure and the ruled obtaining
preservation of peace and order at the barangay level.
in courts of law. Criminal prosecution requires a quantum
of evidence different from that of an administrative
proceeding. Under the Rules of the commission, the Labor
Gaanan v. IAC
Arbiter is given the discretion to determine the necessity of
 The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a
a formal trial or hearing.
"device or arrangement" for the purpose of secretly
overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication.
El Greco v. Commissioner of Customs
 There must be either a physical interruption through a
 Well-entrenched is the rule that findings of facts of the CTA
wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or
are binding on the SC and can only be disturbed on appeal
arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the
if not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial
spoken words. An extension telephone cannot be placed in
evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a
the same category as the use thereof cannot be considered
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
as "tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line. The
conclusion.
telephone extension in this case was not installed for that
purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office
GSIS v. Villaviza
use.
 Suppletory is defined as "supplying deficiencies." It means
 An extension telephone is an instrument which is very
that the provisions in the Rules of Court will be made to
common especially now when the extended unit does not
apply only where there is an insufficiency in the applicable
have to be connected by wire to the main telephone but
rule.
can be moved from place ' to place within a radius of a
 It is true that Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides that
kilometer or more.
the rules can be applied in a "suppletory character." There

PK Evidence Doctrine Reviewer 2019-

20
 is, however, no such deficiency as the rules of the GSIS
are explicit in case of failure to file the required answer.
Kinds of Evidence
What is clearly stated there is that GSIS may "render
Equipoise Rule
judgment as may be warranted by the facts and evidence
submitted by
the prosecution Yuchengco v. Sandiganbayan (Separate opinion of
Sandoval- Gutierrez)
Reyes v. CA  J. Sandoval-Gutierriez disagrees with the majority opinion
 Section 16 of P.D. No. 946 provides that the "Rules of in that the Republic failed to prove that the blank deeds of
Court shall not be applicable in agrarian cases even in a assignment/trust ever turned up in Marcos’ hands because
suppletory character." The same provision states that "In there was no proof of prior delivery to the latter. In fact,
the hearing, investigation and determination of any the deeds were delivered to Ramon Cojuangco and not to
question or controversy, affidavits and counter-affidavits Marcos, thus negating any involvement of Marcos in the
may be allowed and are admissible in evidence". alleged dummy corporations. Moreover, on the assumption
 Moreover, in agrarian cases, the quantum of evidence that the Republic has presented a persuasive case, it may
required is no more than substantial evidence. not be said that defendants do not have in their favor an
o It has been defined to be such relevant evidence as equally persuasive one.
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to  Even were we to find the balance of evidence to be just
support a conclusion and its absence is not shown about at equipoise, the Republic’s instant claim must fall.
by stressing that there is contrary evidence on Equiponderance of evidence rule states that when the
record, direct or circumstantial. scales shall stand upon an equipoise and there is nothing
in the evidence which shall incline it to one side or the
First United Construction Corp. v. Valdez other, the court will find for the defendant.
 While rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and  Under the said principle, the plaintiff must rely on the
equity shall not be controlling, this assurance of a desirable strength of his evidence and not on the weaknesses of
flexibility in administrative procedure does not go as far as defendant’s claim.
to justify orders without basis in evidence having rational
probative force. Abarquez v. People – as applied to criminal cases
 When there is doubt on the guilt of an accused, the doubt
When evidence not required should be resolved in his favor. The defense of the
Eastern Shipping v. BPI/MS Insurance accused, even if weak, is no reason to convict. Within this
 A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy framework, the prosecution must prove its case beyond
concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to any hint of uncertainty. The defense need not even speak
a certain set of facts, or when the issue does not call for an at all. The presumption of innocence is more than
examination of the probative value of the evidence sufficient.
presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted.  We apply in this case the equipoise rule. Where the
 A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference evidence on an issue of fact is in issue or there is doubt on
arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the which side the evidence preponderates, the party having
query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering the burden of proof loses.
mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and  Hence: “The equipoise rule finds application if, as in this
relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as case, the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable
their relation to each other and to the whole, and the of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent
probability of the situation. with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent
with his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the
test of
 moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a
 The rule is that charges of misconduct against judges
conviction. Briefly stated, the needed quantum of proof to
should be proven by clear and convincing evidence,
convict the accused of the crime charged is found lacking.” otherwise they should be dismissed.
 Considering that in the present case complainant not only
People v. Erquiza
failed to present any evidence to substantiate his complaint
 Faced with two conflicting versions, the Court is guided by
but, on the other hand, Rodriguez has presented proofs
the equipoise rule. Thus, where the inculpatory facts and which show the falsity of the charges, we can do no less
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, than approve the recommendation of the Investigating
one of which is consistent with the innocence of the Judge.
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the  Acceptance by the President of respondent’s courtesy
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is
resignation does not necessarily render the case moot or
not sufficient to support a conviction.
deprive the Courts the authority to investigate the charges.
 The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence in a
The rule that the resignation or retirement of the
criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional respondent in an administrative case renders the case
presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the
moot and academic is not a hard and fast rule. Each case
accused. is to be resolved in the context of the circumstances
 Class notes: even if the alibi fails, proof beyond reasonable
present thereat.
doubt must still be established.
 Burden of proof v. burden of evidence
Substantial Evidence
o Burden of proof – the duty to establish the truth of Biak na Bato Mining Co. v. Tanco
a given proposition or issue by such quantum of  Substantial evidence has been defined or construed to
evidence as the law demands in the case at which mean not necessarily preponderant proof as required in
the issue arises. To persuade the court, one must
ordinary civil cases but such kind of relevant evidence as a
prove what he alleges.
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
o Burden of evidence – the duty of a party to go
conclusion.
forward with the evidence to overthrow the prima
facie evidence against him
General Provisions: Rule 128, Section 3 and 4
Gutang v. People
 The situation in the case at bar falls within the exemption
under the freedom from testimonial compulsion since what
Evidence beyond reasonable
was sought to be examined came from the body of the
doubt People v. Pacis
accused.
 The maxim of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus," (false in
 This was a mechanical act the accused was made to
one thing, false in everything) however, is not a positive
undergo which was not meant to unearth undisclosed facts
rule of law. Neither is it an inflexible one of universal
but to ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple
application. If a part of a witness' testimony is found true,
observation.
it cannot be disregarded entirely. The testimony of a
 What the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or
witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part.
moral compulsion to extort communication from the
accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when
Clear and Convincing Evidence
it may be material.
Pesole v. Rodriguez
Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan
  The letters were rightfully seized [admissible]. The COLLATERAL MATTER? Relevant.
signatures on each envelope were affixed without the ▪ State of mind that the Marshall beats people up, leading
assistance of counsel and are inadmissible in evidence
because it constitutes an admission of guilt.
 However, this does not render the letters themselves
inadmissible in evidence because they were rightfully
seized from the three accused persons anyway. Further,
the guilt of each accused was established beyond
reasonable doubt even without the signatures being
admitted in evidence.

Stonehill v. Diokno
 As to those Seized from the Corporation's Premises:
ADMISSIBLE. Petitioners (natural persons) have no cause
of action to challenge the search warrants on such
premises. The COA belongs to the corporations to whom
the effects belong – they have separate and distinct
personalities.
 As to those seized from residences: INADMISSIBLE. They
were seized pursuant to void "general warrants" and did
not satisfy the requirements of Art. III, Sec 1(3) of
Constitution.
o 2 requirements for a warrant to be valid:
1. that no warrant shall issue but upon probable
cause, to be determined by the judge in the
manner set forth in said provision;
2. that the warrant shall particularly describe the
things to be seized.

Relevancy of Evidence
Knapp v. State
 “Relevancy is that which conduces to the proof of a
pertinent
hypothesis.”
 “The competency of a collateral fact to be used as the
basis of a legitimate argument, is not to be determined by
the conclusiveness of the inferences it may afford in
reference to the litigated fact. It is enough if these may
tend, in a slight degree, to elucidate the inquiry, or
to assist, though remotely, to a determination
probably founded in truth.” - a collateral fact need not
be conclusive.
 IS THE INFORMATION (THAT SOMEONE TOLD HIM THAT
THE MARSHALL BEAT UP A MAN) RELEVANT OR A
 to their death. — existence of a threat
▪ That state of mind lead to his acts which he claims as
self-defense.

People v. Yatco
 On the Rule of Admissibility, the practice of excluding
evidence on doubtful objections to its materiality or
technical objections to the form of the questions should
be avoided.
 In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of
first instance, in the early stages of the development of
the proof, to know with any certainty whether
testimony is relevant or not; and where there is no
indication of bad faith on the part of the Attorney
offering the evidence, the court may as a rule safely
accept the testimony upon the statement of the
attorney that the proof offered will be connected later.
 Under the rule of multiple admissibility of
evidence, even if Consunji’s confession may not be
competent as against his co-accused Panganiban,
being hearsay as to the latter, or to prove conspiracy
between them without the conspiracy being established
by other evidence, the confession of Consunji was,
nevertheless, admissible as evidence of the declarant’s
own guilt and should be admitted.

Prats & Co. v. Phoenix Insurance Co.

 Justice is most effectively and expeditiously
administered in the courts where trivial objections to
the admission of proof are received with least favor.
The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful
objections to its materiality or technical objections to
the form of the questions should be avoided.
 In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of
first instance, in the early stages of the development of
the proof, to know with any certainty whether
testimony is relevant or not; and where there is no
indication of bad faith on the part of the attorney
ordering the evidence, the court may as a rule safely
accept the testimony upon the statement of the
attorney that the proof ordered will be connected later.
Ephemeral Electronic Communication
Nuez v. Cruz - Apao
Tan v. Hosana
 Text messages are classified as electronic communications
 While the terms and provisions of a void contract cannot
and shall be proven by testimony of a person who was a
be enforced since it is deemed inexistent, it does not
party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof.
preclude the admissibility of the contract as evidence to
The recipient of a text message, who is a party to the
prove matters that occurred in the course of executing the
communication thus having personal knowledge, can
contract.
testify on the contents and import of the messages.
 Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and
is not excluded by the law of these rules. There is no
People v. Enojas
provision in the Rules of Evidence which excludes
 Text messages where admitted in conformity with SC
the admissibility of a void document. The Rules only
Resolution applying Rules on Electronic Evidence to
require that the evidence is relevant and not excluded by
criminal actions. Text messages are to be proved by the
the Rules for its admissibility.
testimony of a person who was a party to the same of
 Hence, a void document is admissible as evidence because
has personal knowledge of them.
the purpose of introducing it as evidence is to ascertain the
truth respecting a matter of fact, not to enforce the terms
Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud
of the document itself
 Text messages have been classified as “ephemeral
 While the terms and provisions of a void contract cannot
electronic communication” under the Rules on Electronic
be enforced since it is deemed inexistent, it does not
Evidence, and “shall be proven by the testimony of a
preclude the admissibility of the contract as evidence
person who was a party to the same or has personal
knowledge thereof.” Any question as to the admissibility of
such messages is now moot and academic, as the
respondent himself, as well as his counsel, already
admitted that he was the sender of the first three Admissibility v. Weight of
messages on Atty. Madarang’s cell phone. evidence People v. Turco
 As pointed out by the Investigating Officer, the  Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and
respondent’s claim of "joking around" ("nakipaglokohan") is not excluded by the law or the rules. Since admissibility
with an unknown sender of a text message by replying of evidence is determined by its relevance and
thereto is contrary to a normal person’s reaction. This is competence, admissibility is an affair of logic and law.
made even more apparent by the fact that the respondent  On the other hand, the weight to be given to such
even admitted that he called Atty. Madarang twice, and evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial evaluation
when asked why, gave a vague answer, and, when further within the guidelines provided in Rule 133 and the
questioned, even broke down in tears jurisprudence laid down by the Court.

MCC Industrial v. Ssangyong

 The terms "electronic data message" and "electronic
document," as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act
of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission.
Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be
considered as electronic evidence.

Admissibility of Void documents

 RULE 129 JUDICIAL NOTICE; JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Republic v. Rosario
Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court mandates that a court
Sections 1-3
shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of
the official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial
Sps. Latip v. Chua
departments of the Philippines.
The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with
caution. Care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists and
every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly As both Congress and this Court have repeatedly and consistently
resolved in the negative. validated and recognized UP's indefeasible title over its
landholdings, the RTC and the CA erred when it faulted the
Matters of mandatory judicial notice shall have 3 material Republic and UP for presenting certified true copies of its titles
requisites: signed by its records custodian instead of either the duplicate
1. the matter must be one of common and general originals or the certified true copies issued by the Register of
knowledge; Deeds of Quezon City.
2. it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful
or uncertain; and People v. Tundag
3. it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction Judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper despite the
of the court. defense counsel’s admission thereof, acceding to the prosecution’s
motion. According to Rule 129 Sec. 3 of the Rules on Evidence, as
The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to to any other matters such as age, a hearing is required before
be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that courts can take judicial notice of such fact.
judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and
facts of general notoriety. The prosecution must present independent proof of the age of the
victim even though it is not contested by the defense. The minority
But judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as
knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, the crime itself. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove with
and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a certainty the fact that the victim was below 18 when the rape was
fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his action. committed in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty.
Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters which are
“commonly” known. Landbank of the Philippines v. Yatco Industrial Enterprises
The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and
The reason why our rules on evidence provide for matters that convenience for it fulfills the purpose that the evidence is intended
need not be proved under Rule 129, specifically on judicial notice, to achieve, and in this sense, it is equivalent to proof.
is to dispense with the taking of the usual form of evidence on a
certain matter so notoriously known, it will not be disputed by the GR: Generally, courts are not authorized to "take judicial notice of
parties. However, in this case, the requisite of notoriety is belied the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases
by the necessity of attaching documentary evidence, the Joint have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the
Affidavit of the stallholders. same judge."
EX: They may, however, take judicial notice of a decision or the
In this case, only the CA took judicial notice of this supposed facts prevailing in another case sitting in the same court if:
practice to pay goodwill money to the lessor in the Baclaran area. 1. the parties present them in evidence, absent any
The payment of goodwill is not common knowledge and it was still opposition from the other party; or
needed to be proven by documentary evidence. 2. the court, in its discretion, resolves to do so.
In either case, the courts must observe the clear boundary
provided by Section 3, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.
People v. Hernandez
Generally, courts can only take judicial notice of its own acts and
Board of Liquidators v. Ricma Trading
records in the SAME case and not in another case. However, there
The reference to an action "upon a written contract" in Article 1144
is an exception to this rule which applies in this case: In the
of the Civil Codedoes not preclude instances when the agreement
absence of any objection and with the knowledge of the opposing
may not be found in one single document but in two or more
party, the contents of said other case are clearly referred to by
separate writings related to each other, which when taken together
title and number in the pending action and adopted or read into
contain all the elements of a contract.
the record of the later.
While there was no formal written contract signed by the parties,
In this case, it was the accused Hernandez herself that introduced
separate documents (Res. 7173, invoice receipt, official receipts)
evidence that she had another pending case of illegal recruitment
constitute written evidence of the agreement because these
when she testified that the NBI detained her for that other case, so
documents, although separate, if taken together, embody all the
she cannot now object to the court taking judicial notice of this fact
terms and conditions of the agreement of purchase and sale
when it was the accused herself who introduced such fact to the
between the BOL-LASEDECO and RICMA.
court with her testimony.
Therefore, the cause of action has not yet prescribed – the action Gener v. De Leon
being based on a written contract. Besides, judicial notice may be
The Municipal Trial Court of Norzagaray should have taken judicial
taken of the fact that contractual transactions with government or
notice of the said criminal cases involving the subject parcel of
any of its instrumentalities are invariably in writing.
land and pending in its docket. While, as a general rule, courts are
not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records
People v. Mapa
of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are
Judicial Notice of Bad Cops Who Plant Evidence - While this Court
pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both
commends the efforts of law enforcement agencies who are
cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same
engaged in the difficult and dangerous task of apprehending and
judge, this rule is subject to the exception that "in the absence of
prosecuting drug- traffickers, it cannot, however, close its eyes nor
objection and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court
ignore the many reports of false arrests of innocent persons for
may properly treat all or any part of t he original record of the case
extortion purposes and blackmail, or to satisfy some hidden
filed in its archives as read into the records of a case pending
personal resentment of the "informer" or law enforcer against the
before it, when with the knowledge of the opposing party,
accused. Courts should be vigilant and alert to recognize trumped
reference is made to it, by name and number or in some other
up drug charges lest an innocent man, on the basis of planted
manner by which it is sufficiently designated."
evidence, be made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for
drug offenses.

It would be noteworthy to mention though, that Elmer was

Tabuena v. CA
subjected to a drug test to find out whether he was likewise a drug
GR: As a general rule "courts are not authorized to take judicial
user. It is often observed that a drug pusher usually, if not all the
notice, in the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the
time is also a drug user. The act of pushing drugs is a means to
contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have
support his being a drug dependent.
been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding
the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually
For whatever its worth, Elmer was found to be drug free.
pending b before the same judge.Nevertheless, it applied the
when it entered into a Management Contract with
exception that:
petitioner. Hence, judicial notice cannot be applied.
EX:
1. in the absence of objection, and as a matter of People v. Rullepa
convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat all or The process by which the trier of facts judges a person's age from
any part of the original record of a case filed in its archives his or her appearance cannot be categorized as judicial
as read into the record of a case pending before it, when, notice.When the trier of facts observes the appearance of a person
with the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is to ascertain his or her age, he is not taking judicial notice of
made to it for that purpose, by name and number or in such fact; rather, he is conducting an examination of the
some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated; evidence, the evidence being the appearance of the person. This
or process militates against the very concept of judicial notice, the
2. when the original record of the former case or any part of object of which is to do away with the presentation of evidence.
it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court's
direction, at the request or with the consent of the parties, Whether the victim was below seven years old, however, is
and admitted as a part of the record of the case then another matter. Here, reasonable doubt exists. A mature three and
pending. a half- year old can easily be mistaken for an underdeveloped
seven-year old. The appearance of the victim, as object evidence,
It is clear, though, that this exception is applicable only when, "in cannot be accorded much weight and, following Pruna, the
the absence of objection," "with the knowledge of the opposing testimony of the mother is, by itself, insufficient.
party," or "at the request or with the consent of the parties," the
case is clearly referred to or "the original or part of the records of Regulus Development v. Dela Cruz
the case are actually withdrawn from the archives" and "admitted This Court takes judicial notice5 that the validity of the RTC Orders
as part of the record of the case then pending." has been upheld in a separate petition before this Court, under
G.R. SP No. 171429 entitled Antonio Dela Cruz v. Regulus
These conditions have not been established here. On the contrary, Development, Inc.
the petitioner was completely unaware that his testimony in Civil
Case No. 1327 was being considered by the trial court in the case
then pending before it. As the petitioner puts it, the matter was Heirs of Canque v. CA
never taken up at the trial and was "unfairly sprung" upon him, Every court must take cognizance of decisions the SC has rendered
leaving him no opportunity to counteract. because they are proper subjects of mandatory judicial notice, and
more importantly form part of the legal system. Here, the CA
Asian Terminals v. Malayan Insurance should have decided pursuant to Rural Bank of Davao City v. CA.
The Management Contract entered into by petitioner and the PPA
is clearly not among the matters which the courts can take judicial People v. Bersamin
notice of. It cannot be considered an official act of the executive There is one other proof of moral perversity which, added to the
department. circumstances already mentioned, compels the Court to deal with
the appellant with utmost severity-when Bersamin pretreated the
crime at bar, he had been the ringleader in the case for murder
The PPA, which was created by virtue of Presidential Decree No.
and another case for double murder and was in hiding to avoid
857, as amended, is a government-owned and controlled
arrest and prosecution in those cases.
corporation in charge of administering the ports in the country.
Obviously, the PPA was only performing a proprietary function
G Holdings Inc. v. National Mines and Allied Workers Union
Before a court delves into an extended discussion of an issue, it is
available; or (2) the deceased was employed as a daily wage
essential to take judicial cognizance of cases intimately linked to
worker earning less than the 'minimum wage under current labor
the present controversy which had earlier been elevated to and
laws.
decided by such Court. Thus, Judicial notice of previous cases to
determine whether or not the case pending is a moot one or
whether or not a previous ruling is required before delving deeper The rule is that evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and
into the issues presented. may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment,
as what the RTC in this case aptly did, since it was indubitably in a
Pilipinas Shell v. Fredeluces better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during
When a motion to dismiss is filed, only allegations of ultimate facts trial.
are hypothetically admitted. Allegations of evidentiary facts and
conclusions of law, as well as allegations whose falsity is subject to Medina v. Kioke
judicial notice, those which are legally impossible, inadmissible in The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment
evidence, or unfounded, are disregarded. is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice
Since allegations of evidentiary facts and conclusions of law are of foreign judgments and laws. As a rule, no sovereign is bound to
omitted in pleadings, the hypothetical admission is limited to the give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a
relevant and material facts well pleaded in the complaint and tribunal of another country." This means that the foreign judgment
inferences fairly deducible therefrom. However, it is mandatory and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on
that courts "consider other facts within the range of judicial notice, evidence, together with the alien's applicable national law to show
as well as relevant laws and jurisprudence in resolving motions to the effect of the judgement on the alien himself or herself. The
dismiss. recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for the
purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign
EXCEPTIONS: decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense.
In Dabuco v. Court of Appeals: There is no hypothetical admission
of the veracity of allegations if their falsity is subject to judicial PITC v. COA
notice, or if such allegations are legally impossible, or if these refer GR: SC interpretations retroact to the date of the Statute’s
to facts which are inadmissible in evidence, or if by the record or enactment.
document included in the pleading these allegations appear Ex: When a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view
unfounded. Also, inquiry is not confined to the complaint if there is is adopted, and more so when there is a reversal thereof, the new
evidence which has been presented to the court by stipulation of doctrine should be applied prospectively and should not apply to
the parties, or in the course of hearings related to the case.’ parties who relied on the old doctrine and acted in good faith.

Enriquez v. Isarog Decisions of SC, although in themselves not laws, are nevertheless
GR: Documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate evidence of what the laws mean, and this is the reason why under
the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. Article 8 of the New Civil Code, 'Judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the
EX: Damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite legal system. The interpretation upon a law by this Court
the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased was constitutes, in a way, a part of the law as of the date that law was
self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under originally passed, since this Court's construction merely establishes
current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the contemporaneous legislative intent that the law thus construed
the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary intends to effectuate.
evidence is
Jurisprudence, in our system of government, cannot be considered
as an independent source of law; it cannot create law. The
principle
of prospectivity applies not only to original amendatory statutes
c. It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction
and administrative rulings and circulars, but also, and properly so,
of the court
to judicial decisions.
The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to
be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that
Judicial interpretation becomes a part of the law as of the date
judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and
that law was originally passed, subject only to the qualification that
facts of general notoriety.
when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is
adopted, and more so when there is a reversal thereof, the new
Moreover, a judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to a
doctrine should be applied prospectively and should not apply to reasonable
parties who relied on the old doctrine and acted in good faith. dispute in that it is either:
1. Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the
This case was the first case interpreting the questioned E.O.
trial court; or
Hence, the Court’s interpretation retroacts to the date of the E.O.’s
2. Capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting
enactment.
to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questionable.
Baguio v. De Jalagat
Lower courts can take judicial notice of the finality of a judgment Things of "common knowledge," of which courts take judicial
in a case that was previously pending and thereafter decided by it. matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of
the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are
Vive Chemical v. Commissioner of Customs generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready
Vi Ve claimed that the similarity in the chemical components of and unquestioned demonstration.
propionic glycine and glutamic acid should have been taken judicial
notice of by the Court of Tax Appeals because it is a matter which
Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may be found
is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to
in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are judicially
easily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy.
noticed, provided, they are of such universal notoriety and so
generally understood that they may be regarded as forming part of
Lower Court was correct in stating that the chemical components
the common knowledge of every person. But a court cannot take
of these articles are technical in nature and only persons
judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is dependent on the
possessed of the required knowledge know their similarity or
existence or non-existence of a fact of which the court has no
difference. Neither did appellant show that the chemistry book
constructive knowledge.
show the chemical components of propionic glycine and glutamic
acid are the same. This being so, it cannot be said that these
Here, SC took judicial notice of availability of teleconferencing but
objects are of public knowledge or of unquestionable
not the fact that the alleged teleconferencing actually happened.
demonstration to be the proper subject of judicial notice by the
Court. Fluemer v. Hix
The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our
Expert Travel & Tours Co. v. CA courts. The courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to
Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material take judicial notice of the laws of the various States of the
requisites: American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts.
a. The matter must be one of common and general
knowledge;
Proving Foreign Law/Processual Presumption
b. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful
CIR v. Fisher
or uncertain;
Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our
courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any
Where the foreign law sought to be proved is "unwritten," the oral
other fact, they must be alleged and proved.
testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, as are printed and
published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the country
Section 41, Rule 123 of our Rules of Court prescribes the manner
concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in such courts. The
of proving foreign laws before our tribunals. However, although we
court has interpreted Section 24 to include competent evidence
believe it desirable that these laws be proved in accordance with
like the testimony of a witness to prove the existence of a written
said rule, we held a reading of sections 300 and 301 of our Code of
foreign law.
Civil Procedure (now section 41, Rule 123) will convince one that
these sections do not exclude the presentation of other competent
A foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. In
evidence to prove the existence of a foreign law."
the absence of pleading and proof, the laws of a foreign country,
or state, will be presumed to be the same as our own local or
In that case, we considered the testimony of an attorney-at-law of
domestic law and this is known as processual presumption.
San Francisco, California who quoted verbatim a section of
California Civil Code and who stated that the same was in force at
Phil. Commercial & Industrial bank v. Escolin
the time the obligations were contracted, as sufficient evidence to
Elementary is the rule that foreign laws may not be taken judicial
establish the existence of said law. In line with this view, we find
notice of and have to be proven like any other fact in dispute
no error, therefore, on the part of the Tax Court in considering the
between the parties in any proceeding, with the rare exception in
pertinent California law as proved by respondents' witness.
instances when the said laws are already within the actual
knowledge of the court, such as when they are well and generally
Manufacturers Hanover Trust v. Guerrero
known or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before
See Rule 132, Sec. 24
it and none of the parties concerned do not claim otherwise.
SC did not use the exception in Willamette Iron and Steel Works v.
ATCI Overseas v. Echin
Muzzal or Collector of Internal Revenue v. Fisher. These cases
Same Doctrine as PCIB v. Escolin
involved attorneys testifying in open court during the trial in the
Philippines and quoting the particular foreign laws sought to be
In Re: Siemen’s Estate
established.
The testatrix's will bequeathed money to "the Penna. S.P.C.A."
Appellants argued that the object of the residuary estate was not
On the other hand, in this case, the Walden affidavit (stating the
properly designated and asked that the will be declared void
foreign law executed by a NY lawyer) was taken abroad ex parte
thereto and that the testatrix be declared to have died intestate as
and the affiant never testified in open court. The Walden affidavit
to her residuary estate. The Pennsylvania Society for the
cannot be considered as proof of New York law on damages not
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals made a claim, asking the court to
only because it is self-serving but also because it does not state
take judicial notice of the meaning of the abbreviation: “the Penna.
the specific New York law on damages.
S.P.C.A.” and offered testimony as to what this abbreviation
meant.
Wildvalley Shipping v. CA
Philippine courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of
Judicial notice will be taken of such ordinary abbreviations as by
foreign laws. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.
common use may be regarded as universally understood. The
A distinction is to be made as to the manner of proving a written
court may inform itself from books of authority, though not
and an unwritten law. The former falls under Section 24, Rule 132
introduced in evidence, or may admit such works to aid it in the
of the Rules of Court.
exercise of its judicial function. Judicial notice does not depend on
the actual knowledge of the judges. When the fact is alleged,
they must
investigate and may refresh their recollection by resorting to any
each case, not upon what someone predicts it will show in many
means which they may deem safe and proper.
cases.
Here, the court in aid of its "judicial knowledge" quoted definitions
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
of the abbreviations "S.P.C.A." from many standard encyclopedias
In this case, the Commission fixed a valuation for years 1926 to
and dictionaries, showing that the initials "S.P.C.A." have become
1933, going above their task of valuating a certain property. For
a part of the English language as symbols of the "Society for the this purpose, it took judicial notice of price trends during those
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals". years.
These and countless other abbreviations convey to the mind as SC held that Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that there has
definite an impression of a legal entity or association (as the case been an economic depression, with decline of market values, but
may be) as do the words themselves which they epitomize. If the judicial notice cannot be taken of the values of land, labor,
court itself had no judicial knowledge of the meaning of these buildings, and equipment, with their yearly fluctuations. This
words (as presumably all courts in English speaking countries distinction is the more important in cases where the extent of the
have) it would be justified in accepting the standard works cited as fluctuations is not collaterally involved, but is the very point in
fixing the meaning of the abbreviation questioned here, to wit: issue.
"the Penna. S.P.C.A." It was not even suggested in this case that
any other organization existed which could be identified with this Catungal v. Hao
abbreviation. The trial court has the authority to fix the reasonable value for the
continued use and occupancy of the leased premises after the
In Re: Marriage of Tresnak termination of the lease contract, and it is not bound by the
In a child custody case, the lower court awarded custody to the stipulated rental in the contract of lease. Moreover, the trial court
father, explaining that the wife’s amibition for a career is not can take judicial notice of the general increase in rentals of real
necessarily for the best interest and welfare of her minor children estate especially of business establishments like the leased
since her time would be consumed (she applied for law school). building owned by the private respondents.
SC held that to be capable of being judicially noticed a matter Judicial knowledge may be defined as the cognizance of certain
must be of common knowledge or capable of certain verification. facts which a judge under rules of legal procedure or otherwise
In this case, the trial court defended its findings by asserting a may properly take or act upon without proof because they are
"personal acquaintanceship with the studies of law school." already known to him, or is assumed to have, by virtue of his
However, judicial notice "is limited to what a judge may properly office.
know in his judicial capacity, and he is not authorized to make his
personal knowledge of a fact not generally or professionally known Judicial cognizance is taken only of those matters that are
the basis of his action.' SC held that the LC’s statements about the commonly known. The power of taking judicial notice is to be
necessity of extensive library study and likelihood of mother's work exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken that the
on the law review at the University of Iowa law school are not requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the
matters of common knowledge or capable of certain verification subject should be promptly resolved in the negative. Matters of
within the meaning of the judicial notice principle. judicial notice have three material requisites:
1. The matter must be one of common and general
Further, the LC’s reasoning contains matters which are not subject knowledge;
to judicial notice, and it represents a stereotypical view of sexual 2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful
roles which has no place in child custody adjudication. Child or uncertain; and
custody cases are to be decided "upon what the evidence actually 3. It must be known to be within the limits of jurisdiction of
reveals in the court.
The RTC correctly took judicial notice of the nature of the leased
by mandatory judicial notice under Section 1, Rule 129 of the
property subject of the case at bench based on its location and the
Rules of Court.
commercial viability.
Even where there is a statute that requires a court to take judicial
Corinthian Gardens v. Spouses Tanjangco
notice of municipal ordinances (in this case, R.A. 409), a court is
Courts may fix the reasonable amount of rent for the use and
not required to take judicial notice of ordinances that are not
occupation of a disputed property. However, petitioners herein
before it and to which it does not have access. The party asking
erred in assuming that courts, in determining the amount of rent,
the court to take judicial notice is obligated to supply the court
could simply rely on their own appreciation of land values without
with the full text of the rules the party desires it to have notice of.
considering any evidence. As we have said earlier, a court may fix
the reasonable amount of rent, but it must still base its action on
Republic v. CA
the evidence adduced by the parties.
Republic seeks establish ownership of a piece of land, with the
ruling of the same judge in another case but did not adduce the
A court cannot take judicial notice of a factual matter in
order of the said judge.
controversy. The court may take judicial notice of matters of public
knowledge, or which are capable of unquestionable demonstration,
SC held that the rules of procedure and jurisprudence do not
or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
sanction the grant of evidentiary value, in ordinary trials, of
Before taking such judicial notice, the court must "allow the parties
evidence which is not formally offered. However, technical rules of
to be heard thereon." Hence, there can be no judicial notice on the
procedure are not ends in themselves but primarily devised and
rental value of the premises in question without supporting
designed to help in the proper dispensation of justice so the SC
evidence.
remanded the case to the RTC.
Truly, mere judicial notice is inadequate, because evidence is
Marcelo Steel v. CA
required for a court to determine the proper rental value. But
In this case, A lost the case in the RTC then appealed to the CA
contrary to Corinthian's arguments, both the RTC and the CA found
and won, overruling petitioner’s MTD where it argued that there is
that indeed rent was due the Tanjangcos because they were
no mention in the Respondent argued that that fact appears on the
deprived of possession and use of their property. This uniform
face of the record of the case, as evidenced by a certification of the
factual finding of the RTC and the CA was based on the evidence
City Treasurer of Quezon City, to the effect that Respondent’s cash
presented below. Moreover, in Spouses Catungal v. Hao, we
bond was actually filed on October 30, 1970, simultaneously with
considered the increase in the award of rentals as reasonable given
the filing of petitioners-appellants' Notice of Appeal. Respondents'
the particular circumstances of each case. We noted therein that
counsel further contends that "obviously, because said cash appeal
the respondent denied the petitioners the benefits, including
bond was riled simultaneously with the Notice of Appeal, the
rightful possession, of their property for almost a decade.
undersigned counsel, through oversight, failed to state or make
Similarly, in the instant case, the Tanjangcos were deprived of
mention of the filing of the said cash appeal bond in the record.
possession and use of their property for more than two decades
through no fault of their own. Thus, we find no cogent reason to
SC held that there could be instances when the timeliness of an
disturb the monthly rental fixed by the CA.
appeal is a matter which the court can take judicial notice of and,
consequently, it would be inconceivable that any controversy
SJS v. Atienza
between the parties in respect thereto could arise. In such
While courts are required to take judicial notice of the laws
instances, the court is no longer supposed to receive any
enacted by Congress, the rule with respect to local ordinances is
conflicting evidence. It would be bound by what it has judicial
different. Ordinances are not included in the enumeration of
notice of and none of the parties may be permitted to prove the
matters covered
contrary.
 separable from the offense as defined. It is, therefore, incumbent
People v. Bernabe upon the prosecution to prove that negative fact, and failure to
The Court may take judicial notice of the fact that among poor prove it is a ground for acquittal.
couples with big families living in small quarters, copulation does
not seem to be a problem despite the presence of other persons Rules on DNA Evidence
around them. People v. Vallejo
(TLDR: DNA testing is allowed in criminal cases)
Negative Averments This case is about the rape-slay of Daisy. DNA samples were taken
People v. Yang from the clothing of Accused and Daisy, as well as vaginal swabs
Accused argues that there was no evidence to show that he was from Daisy. Based on the testimonies and the evidence presented,
not authorized to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute a the trial court found A guilty of the crime charged. Since death was
dangerous drug. imposed, the case was directly appealed to the SC. The issue
relevant to this case is whether or not the DNA evidence should be
GR: If a criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation [in given value, despite the clothes yielding negative results of human
this case, the lack of authority to sell, deliver, transport, etc.], or a DNA.
negative averment is an essential element of the crime, the
prosecution has the burden to prove the charge. DNA is an organic substance found in a person’s cells which
contains his/her genetic code. Except for identical twins, each
Ex: Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, person’s DNA profile is distinct and unique.
or where the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of
the accused, the onus probandi rests upon him. Stated otherwise, The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association
it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive exists between the evidence sample and reference sample. The
evidence to support a negative averment the truth of which is samples are collected subjected to various chemical processes to
fairly indicated by established circumstances and which, if untrue, establish their profile. The test may yield 3 possible results:
could readily be disproved by the production of documents or other a. Samples are different, therefore must have originated from
evidence within the defendant's knowledge or control. different sources (exclusion). This conclusion is absolute
and requires no further analysis or discussion;
People v. Quebral b. It is not possible to be sure, based on the results whether
This case involves a person practicing medicine without the the samples have similar DNA types (inconclusive). This
necessary license. might occur because of degradation, contamination, failure
of some aspect of the protocol, etc. Various parts of the
The rule is if the subject of the negative averment, like, for analysis might then be repeated with the same or diff.
instance, the act of voting without the qualifications provided by sample to obtain a more conclusive result; or
law, inheres in the offense as an essential ingredient thereof, the c. Samples are similar and could have originated from the
prosecution has the burden of proving the same. In view, however, same source (inclusion). In such, the samples are found to
of the difficult office of proving a negative allegation, the be similar, the analyst proceeds to determine the statistical
prosecution, under such circumstance, need do no more than significance of the similarity.
make a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable. In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should
consider the following data:
The rule, however, is different when the subject of the negative a. How the samples were collected,
averment does not constitute an essential element of the offense, b. How they were handled,
but is purely a matter of defense. Here, the negative fact is not c. Possibility of contamination,
 d. Procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
From the foregoing, it can be said that the death of the Rogelio
e. Whether proper standards of procedure were followed in
does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as
conducting the tests,
long as there exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA. As
f. Qualification of the analyst who conducted the test.
defined, the "biological sample" means any organic material
originating from a person's body, even if found in inanimate
In this case, lack of DNA from the clothes was due to the samples
objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood,
being contaminated with water. The conviction was affirmed
saliva, and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones.
because the vaginal swabs contained DNA from the accused.
Thus, even if Rogelio already died, any of the biological samples as
may be available, may be used for DNA testing. Here, the Estate of
Estate of Ong v. Diaz
Ong has not shown the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate
(TLDR: Even if you’re dead, DNA testing can still be done as long as
biological sample that can be utilized for the conduct of DNA
samples can be taken and analyzed)
testing.
This case involves a petition for compulsory recognition and
support. The lawyer of the estate of the alleged father moved for
Agustin v. CA
dismissal without resorting to DNA testing since the alleged father
(TLDR: DNA testing does not violate constitutional right to
died already. SC held that case should be remanded for DNA
privacy and right against self-incrimination)
testing.
Another case of support and recognition. Issue is WON DNA
paternity testing can be ordered in a proceeding for support
DNA analysis is a procedure in which DNA extracted from a
without violating the constitutional right to privacy and right
biological sample obtained from an individual is examined. The
against self- incrimination.
DNA is processed to generate a pattern, or a DNA profile, for the
individual from whom the sample is taken. This DNA profile is
Yes. The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but
unique for each person, except for identical twins.
against testimonial compulsion. The right against self-incrimination
is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the
Section 4 of the New Rules on DNA Evidence: SEC. 4. Application
accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the
for DNA Testing Order — The appropriate court may, at any time,
evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but as part
either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal
of object evidence.
interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order
shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a
Over the years, we have expressly excluded several kinds of object
showing of the following:
evidence taken from the person of the accused from the realm of
a. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
self-incrimination. These include photographs, hair, and other
b. The biological sample:
bodily substances. We have also declared as constitutional several
a. Was not previously subjected to the type of DNA
procedures performed on the accused such as pregnancy tests for
testing now requested; or
women accused of adultery, expulsion of morphine from one's
b. Was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the
mouth and the tracing of one's foot to determine its identity with
results may require confirmation for good reasons;
bloody footprints. In Jimenez v. Cañizares, we even authorized the
c. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid
examination of a woman's genitalia, in an action for annulment
technique;
filed by her husband, to verify his claim that she was impotent, her
d. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to
orifice being too small for his penis. Some of these procedures
produce new information that is relevant to the
were, to be sure, rather invasive and involuntary, but all of them
proper resolution of the case; and
were constitutionally sound. DNA testing and its results, per our
e. The existence of other factors, if any, which the
ruling in Yatar, are now similarly acceptable.
court may consider as potentially affecting the
accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
Lucas v. Lucas
(TLDR: You need prima facie case before DNA testing is allowed)
Here, the lessor did not deny the admission made by their counsel
Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence merely provides for
nor did they claim that the same was made through palpable
conditions that are aimed to safeguard the accuracy and integrity
mistake. As such, the stipulation of facts is incontrovertible and
of the DNA testing.This does not mean, however, that a DNA
may be relied upon by the courts.
testing order will be issued as a matter of right if, during the
hearing, the said conditions are established.
Toshiba Information v. CIR
Here, CIR and Toshiba entered into a Joint Stipulation of Facts
In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing order, before CTA, stating that Toshiba is a zero-rated entity. This was
there must be a show cause hearing wherein the applicant must used to allow Toshiba’s claim for refund.
first present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case or a
reasonable possibility of paternity or good cause for the holding of The admission having been made in a stipulation of facts at pre-
the test. In these states, a court order for blood testing is trial by the parties, must be treated as a judicial admission. Under
considered a search, which, under their Constitutions (as in ours), Sec. 4, Rule 129 of the RoC, a judicial admission requires no proof.
must be preceded by a finding of probable cause in order to be The admission may be contradicted only by a showing that:
valid. Hence, the requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable a. It was made through palpable mistake or
possibility, was imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a b. That no such admission was made.
finding of probable cause. The Court cannot lightly set aside a judicial admission especially
when the opposing party relied upon the same and accordingly
dispensed with further proof of the fact already admitted. An
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings does
Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex not require proof.
This case is about a collection for a sum of money for a lease
deposit because the lessor kept it, alleging that the lessee caused Ching v. CA
damages to the property. However, the lessor’s lawyer mentioned A case Estafa in relation to the Trust Receipts Law was filed against
in the pre- trial that no inventory of the property was conducted on A. A filed a civil case for declaration of nullity of documents against
the leased premises. the complainant where he mentioned that the trust receipts were
collateral to the loan that A made. A amended his complaint to say
See Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court that what he applied for was a "letter of credit/trust receipt
A party may make judicial admissions in: accommodation" and not a "pure and simple loan with the trust
a. Pleadings, receipts as mere additional or side documents." Issue is WON the
b. During the trial, by verbal or written manifestations or original complaint may be used as a judicial admission from A. No.
stipulations, or
c. In other stages of the judicial proceeding. Under the Rules, pleadings superseded or amended disappear from
the record, lose their status as pleadings and cease to be judicial
The stipulation of facts at the pre-trial of a case constitutes judicial admissions. While they may nonetheless be utilized against the
admissions. The veracity of judicial admissions requires no further pleader as extrajudicial admissions, they must, in order to have
proof and may be controverted only upon a clear showing that the such effect, be formally offered in evidence. If not offered in
admissions were made through palpable mistake or that no evidence, the admission contained therein will not be considered.
admissions were made. Thus, admissions of parties during the pre-
trial, as embodied in the pre-trial order, are binding and conclusive Consequently, the original complaint, having been amended, lost
upon them. its character as a judicial admission, which would have required no
proof, and became merely an extrajudicial admission, the
admissibility of which, as evidence, required its formal offer. In
render useless the proceedings during the preliminary conference
virtue thereof, the amended complaint takes the place of the
and would, in fact, be antithetical to the very purpose of a
original. The latter is regarded as abandoned and ceases to
preliminary conference, which is, among others, to allow the
perform any further function as a pleading. The original complaint
parties to admit and stipulate on a given set of facts and to
no longer forms part of the record.
simplify the issues involved.
Sps. Antazo v. Doblado
Torres v. CA
Failure specifically deny an allegation in an answer amounts to a
The Amended Complaint takes the place of the original. The latter
judicial admission.
is regarded as abandoned and ceases to perform any further
function as a pleading. The original complaint no longer forms part
PLDT v. Robert Pingol
of the record.
A’s employment was terminated by B. A filed a case of constructive
dismissal after more than 4 years. B moved to dismiss due to
Having been amended, the original complaint lost its character as
prescription. A’s argues that the last 3 years were spent he was
a judicial admission, which would have required no proof, and
inquiring from B about the financial benefits due him as an
became merely an extrajudicial admission, the admissibility of
employee who was no longer allowed to do his work which should
which, as evidence, required its formal offer
toll the period.
PhilHealth Care Providers v. Estrada
SC held that his allegation in his complaint before the LA stating
In spite of the presence of judicial admissions in a party's pleading,
that he was terminated more than 4 years ago constituted as a
the trial court is still given leeway to consider other evidence
judicial admission. Judicial admissions made by parties in the
presented.
pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the
The general rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the
same case are conclusive and so does not require further evidence
party making it and does not require proof admits of two
to prove them. These admissions cannot be contradicted unless exceptions:
previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake or
a. When it is shown that the admission was made through
that no such admission was made.
palpable mistake; and
b. When it is shown that no such admission was in fact made.
Theresita et al. v. Jose and Sonia Monteiro
The main issue here is WON a partition is valid. The defendants, in Sarraga v. Banco Filipino
their original answer refuted co-ownership but in the amended GR: The negligence of counsel binds the client.
complaint, admitted it. SC ruled that this was a judicial admission. Ex:
Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides that through estoppel, an 1. Where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the
admission is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and client of due process of law;
cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying 2. When its application will result in outright deprivation of
thereon. the client’s liberty or property; or
3. Where the interests of justice so require.
Sps. Noynay v. Citihomes Builder & Devt. Inc.
Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the Villanueva v. People
admissions. Similar to pre-trial admissions in a pre-trial order in The rule that mistakes of counsel binds the client may not be
ordinary civil cases, the contents of the record of a preliminary strictly followed where observance of it would result in outright
conference control the subsequent course of the action, thereby, deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or where the
defining and limiting the issues to be tried. A contrary ruling would interests of justice so require. Corollarily, if the strict application of
the rules would tend
to frustrate rather than promote justice, this Court is not without
b. It is merely an auxiliary remedy the law affords the parties
power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing the rules of
or the court to reach an enlightened determination of the
procedure.
case
Where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client
Here, the court a quo merely acted on the strength of the ocular
of due process of law, or when its application will result in outright
inspection it conducted. The petition for lay-off was predicated on
deprivation of the client’s liberty or property or where the interests
the lack of work and of the further fact that the company was
of justice so require, relief is accorded to the client who suffered
incurring financial losses. These allegations cannot be established
by reason of the lawyer’s gross or palpable mistake or negligence.
by a mere inspection of the place of labor specially when such
inspection was conducted at the request of the interested party
Other elements that are to be considered are the following:
a. The existence of special or compelling circumstances,
Tangan v. People
b. The merits of the case,
Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth,
c. A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence
and it ranks high in the hierarchy of our trustworthy evidence. For
of the party favored by the suspension of the rules,
this reason, it is regarded as evidence of the highest order. It
d. A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely
speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.
frivolous and dilatory,
e. The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
Here, the physical evidence is amply corroborated by the
eyewitness accounts to the effect that accused took a gun from his
Estrada v. Desierto (Adoptive Admissions)
car and suddenly fired it at the deceased.
See Estrada v. Desierto in Hearsay Rule below.
People v. Amistuzo
Accused alleges that he was deprived of his constitutional right to
be represented by a lawyer because he had no counsel when he
was presented to witness for identification.
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
Rule 130, Sec. 1 His contention has no merit. Sec. 12 (1), Art. III of the 1987
Constitution may be invoked only by a person while he is under
Phil. Motion Picure Workers Assoc. v. Premiere Productions custodial investigation. Custodial investigation starts when the
Court of Industrial Relations relied on an ocular inspection to police investigation has begun to focus on a particular suspect
authorize lay-offs by a corporation. Union argues that they were starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the person to
deprived of the opportunity to disprove what apparently was elicit incriminating statements.
represented to the court during the ocular inspection which at best
may be prearranged by the employer. Police line-up is not part of custodial investigation hence, the right
to
SC held that an ocular inspection of the establishment or premise counsel guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at
involved is proper if the court finds it necessary, but such is this
authorized only to help the court in clearing a doubt, reaching a stage.
conclusion, or finding the truth
a. But it is not the main trial nor should it exclude the Maturillas v. People
presentation of other evidence which the parties may (TLDR: Paraffin Test is not indispensable in a case of homicide
deem necessary to establish their case because it is unreliable/not conclusive)
Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime that may
For illegal sale and possession of drugs, it is crucial that the
be proved by the testimony of eyewitnesses. In its legal sense,
Prosecution establishes the identity of the seized dangerous drugs
corpus delicti does not necessarily refer to the body of the person
in a way that the integrity thereof has been well preserved from
murdered, to the firearms in the crime of homicide with the use of
the time of seizure or confiscation from the accused until the time
unlicensed firearms, to the ransom money in the crime of
of presentation as evidence in court. Nothing less than a faithful
kidnapping for ransom, or to the seized contraband cigarettes.
compliance with this duty is demanded of all law enforcers
arresting drug pushers and drug possessors and confiscating and
Accused depends heavily on its failure to present the gun used in
seizing the dangerous drugs and substances from them.
the shooting and on the negative paraffin test result. Unfortunately
for accused, we have previously held that ‘the choice of what
This duty of seeing to the integrity of the dangerous drugs and
evidence to present, or who should testify as a witness is within
substances is discharged only when the arresting law enforcer
the discretionary power of the prosecutor and definitely not of the
ensures that the chain of custody is unbroken. This has been the
courts to dictate.’
reason for defining chain of custody under Section 1(b) of the
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No.
Anent the failure of the investigators to conduct a paraffin test,
this Court has time and again held that such failure is not fatal to
Here, Prosecution failed to demonstrate a faithful compliance by
the case of the prosecution as scientific experts agree that the
the arresting lawmen of the rule on chain of custody. To start with,
paraffin test is extremely unreliable and it is not conclusive as to
the fact that the dangerous drugs were inventoried and
an accused’s complicity in the crime committed.
photographed at the site of arrest upon seizure in the presence of
Chain of Custody Rule
Reyes, a representative of the media, a representative of the
Reyes v. CA
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official, was
(TLDR: Look at sec. 21 of 9165)
NOT shown.
In this case, a buy-bust operation resulted from the tip of an
.
unnamed lady confidential informant. Such an operation was
Further, in compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 the
susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use
physical inventory and photographing of the seized articles should
as a tool for extortion, and the possibility of that abuse was great.
be conducted, if practicable, at the place of seizure or confiscation
in cases of warrantless seizure. BUT that is true only if there were
The susceptibility to abuse of the operation led to the institution of
indications that petitioner tried to escape or resisted arrest, which
several
might provide the reason why the arresting team was not able to
procedural safeguards by R.A. No. 9165, mainly to guide the law
do the inventory or photographing at accused’s house;
enforcers. Thus, the State must show a faithful compliance with
OTHERWISE, the physical inventory and photographing must
such safeguards during the prosecution of every drug-related
always be immediately executed at the place of seizure or
offense.
confiscation.
The procedural safeguards start with the requirements prescribed
Non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21, supra, is
by Section 21 of R.A. No. 91651 relating to the custody and
not fatal for as long as:
disposition of the a. There was justifiable ground for it, and
confiscated, seized, and surrendered dangerous drugs, plant
b. For as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
sources of the
confiscated or seized articles were properly preserved by
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
the apprehending officer or team.
instruments and paraphernalia, and laboratory equipment. People v. Constantino Jr.
In a prosecution for the sale of a dangerous drug, the following
elements
must be proven:
 a. The identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
the non- admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due
consideration; and
to noncompliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The
b. The delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not
of admissibility, but of weight — evidentiary merit or probative
The following links must be established in the chain of custody in a
value
buy-bust situation:
— to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts
1. The seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
case.
2. The turn-over of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
People v. Havana
3. The turn-over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug
to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
While the testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
4. The turn-over and submission of the marked illegal drugs
standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an
seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential
when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily
People v. Amaro
identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is
Same doctrine as People v. Constantino Jr.
critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness
People v. Ladip
People v. Umanito
(TLDR: Same doctrines as above but SC said that non-compliance
Section 4 of the Rules on DNA Testing spells out the matters which
with chain of custody is a matter of credibility not admissibility [I
the trial court must determine.
think])
Chain of custody rule - a method of authenticating evidence which
Should the RTC find the DNA testing feasible in the case at bar, it
requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
shall order the same, in conformity with Section 5 of the Rules. It
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what
is also the RTC which shall determine the institution to undertake
the proponent claims it to be.
the DNA testing and the parties are free to manifest their
comments on the choice of DNA testing center.
This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from
the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in
After the DNA analysis is obtained, it shall be incumbent upon the
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
parties who wish to avail of the same to offer the results in
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was
accordance with the rules of evidence. The RTC, in evaluating the
and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the
DNA results upon presentation, shall assess the same as evidence
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was
in keeping with Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules. The trial court is
delivered to the next link in the chain.
further enjoined to observe the requirements of confidentiality and
preservation of the DNA evidence in accordance with Sections 11
The requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR are not
and 12 of the Rules.
inflexible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, the RTC shall
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
consider, among
accused.
other things, the following data:
a. How the samples were collected,
It is noteworthy that the SC stated that they did not find any
b. How they were handled,
provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring
c. The possibility of contamination of the samples,
about
d. The procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
 e. Whether the proper standards and procedures
In this case the motion picture did not portray the actual
were followed in conducting the tests, and
automobile involved in the accident. Indeed, it may be virtually
f. The qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
impossible to recreate a particular automobile which has suffered a
variety of different and unknown stresses and strains or perhaps
Moreover, the court a quo must ensure that the proper chain of
enjoyed meticulous care. Hence, its reliability, as identical with the
custody in the
original scene, is decreased and may be minimized to the point of
handling of the samples submitted by the parties is adequately
worthlessness.
borne in the
records, i.e.:
Jose v. CA
a. That the samples are collected by a neutral third party;
[This case was the one where Patek had to draw on the board.
b. That the tested parties are appropriately identified at
Toto’s point was that the placement of the two vehicles that
their sample collection appointments;
figured in the accident showed that it was not the fault of the bus
c. That the samples are protected with tamper tape at
as the car should have thrown farther if the bus was going fast]
the collection site;
d. That all persons in possession thereof at each stage of
The RTC was justified in relying on the photos rather than
testing thoroughly inspected the samples for tampering
Abraham’s testimony which is obviously biased and unsupported
and explained his role in the custody of the samples and
by other evidence. Physical evidence is a mute but an eloquent
the acts he performed in relation thereto.
manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of
trustworthy evidence
Rule 130, Sec. 2
State of Washington v. Tatum
Balian v. Gen. Motors
This is a case of forged checks. Prosecution adduced the negative
It is well settled that relevant motion pictures are generally
and print Regiscope films which captures both the image of the
admissible if
check and the person presenting it. It was admissible.
properly authenticated. Authentication of motion pictures ordinarily
includes:
Witness A testified that she recognized the background shown in
a. Evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the taking of
the picture as that of the food store, and, as mentioned previously,
the film;
she also testified as to the store's standard procedure of
b. The manner and circumstances surrounding the
"regiscoping" each individual who cashed a check at the store. B
development of the film;
testified at length concerning the Regiscope process. The
c. Evidence in regard to the projection of the film; and
testimony of these two witnesses taken together amounted to a
d. Testimony by a person present at the time the motion
sufficient authentication to warrant the admission of the
pictures were taken that the pictures accurately depict the
photograph (both the print and the negative) into evidence.
events as he saw them when they occurred.
The fact that B was not a professional photographer and may have
Fundamental fairness dictates that the party proposing to offer
not understood all of the technical details of the process, did not
such evidence give notice thereof and an opportunity to his
disqualify him from expressing an opinion in his testimony as to
adversary to monitor the experiment and the taking of the film,
the possibility of altering a given Regiscope print.
which was not done in this case which justified its exclusion from
admission into evidence.
This court has many times held that the question of whether or not
a witness is qualified to express an expert opinion lies within the
[Might not be that important]
sound discretion of the trial court. In view of B’s testimony that he
personally had developed “four to five hundred thousand”
individual
Regiscope films, we hardly think that the trial court abused its
discretion in this regard.
To be admissible in evidence as an electronic data message or to
be considered as the functional equivalent of an original document
Sison et al. v. People/ People v. Annie Ferrer et al.
under the Best Evidence Rule, the writing must foremost be an
"electronic data message" or an "electronic document."
Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by
the photographer as to its production and testified as to the
Electronic Data Message - Information generated, sent, received or
circumstances under which they were produced.
stored by electronic, optical or similar means.
The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can
Electronic Document – Information or the representation of
identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the
information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written
photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can
expression, described or however represented, by which a right is
be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who
established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may
made it or by other competent witnesses, after which the court can
be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted,
admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy.
stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically.
Torralba v. People
Facsimile transmissions are not, paperless, but verily are paper-
It is generally held that sound recording is not inadmissible
based. A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at
because of its form where a proper foundation has been laid to
best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original. Without
guarantee the genuineness of the recording. In our jurisdiction, it
the original, there is no way of determining on its face whether the
is a rudimentary rule of evidence that before a tape recording is
facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally
admissible in evidence and given probative value, the following
signed by the party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham
requisites must first be established, to wit:
pleading.
1. A showing that the recording device was capable of taking
testimony;
NAPOCOR v. Codilla
2. A showing that the operator of the device was competent;
Judge denied admission of some pieces of evidence (photocopies of
3. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the
letters and list of costs of damage) on the ground that plaintiff
recording;
never produced the originals. The plaintiff attempted to justify the
4. A showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not
admission of the photocopies by contending that “the photocopies
been made;
offered are equivalent to the original of the document” on the basis
5. A showing of the manner of the preservation of the
of the Electronic Evidence Rule. SC held no.
recording;
6. Identification of the speakers; and
What differentiates an electronic document from a paper-based
7. A showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made
document is the manner by which the information is processed.
without any kind of inducement.
The information contained in an electronic document is received,
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
Rules on Electronic Evidence
electronically.
MCC v. Ssangyon
The terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document,"
A perusal of the information contained in the photocopies
as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not
submitted by petitioner will reveal that not all of the contents
include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile
therein, such as the signatures of the persons who purportedly
transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence.
signed the documents, may be recorded or produced electronically.
Having thus declared that the offered photocopies are not
tantamount to
electronic documents, it is consequential that the same may not be
applying the best evidence rule, found that Seiler lost or destroyed
considered as the functional equivalent of their original as decreed
the originals in bad faith, and that secondary evidence, such as the
in the law.
post-Empire Strikes Back reconstructions, was inadmissible.
Aznar v. Citibank NA
The contents of Seiler's work are at issue. There can be no proof of
To prove that his card was blacklisted by Citibank, Aznar
"substantial similarity" and thus of copyright infringement unless
presented a computer print-out, denominated as ON-LINE
Seiler's works are juxtaposed with Lucas' and their contents
AUTHORIZATIONS FOREIGN ACCOUNT ACTIVITY REPORT, issued
compared. Since the contents are material and must be proved,
to him by Ingtan Agency with the signature of one Nubi which
Seiler must either produce the original or show that it is
shows that his card in question was "DECL OVERLIMIT" or declared
unavailable through no fault of his own.
over the limit. It was inadmissible.
Aside from defending against fraud, the Best Evidence Rule is also
Aznar, did not actually see the document executed or written,
supported by the policy served by the best evidence rule in
neither was he able to provide evidence on the genuineness of the
protecting against faulty memory.
signature or handwriting of Nubi, who handed to him said
computer print-out. See Rule on how to prove private documents.
Chua Gaw v. Chua
Here, petitioner maintains that the RTC erred in admitting in
Even if examined under the Rules on Electronic Evidence,
evidence a mere copy of the Deed of Partition and the Deed of
authentication is still wanting. ECE provides the manner of
Sale in violation of the best evidence rule.
authentication of Electronic Documents: Before any private
electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence,
The best evidence rule applies only when the content of such
its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as
a. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person
to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on
purported to have signed the same;
the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the
b. By evidence that other appropriate security procedures or
best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is
devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by
admissible.
law for authentication of electronic documents were
Any other substitutionary
applied to the document; or
evidence is likewise admissible without need to account for the
c. By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to
original.
the satisfaction of the judge.
Moreover, production of the original may be dispensed with, in the
Aznar failed to demonstrate how the information reflected on the
trial courts discretion, whenever the opponent does not bona fide
print-out was generated and how the said information could be
dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose
relied upon as true.
will be served by requiring production.
Rule 130, Sec. 3-9 [Original Evidence Rule]
The rule was not applicable to the instant case because there was
NPC v. Codilla
no dispute as to the terms of both deeds. Petitioner never even
See case above.
denied their due execution and admitted that she signed the Deed
of Partition.
Seiler v. Lucas Film Ltd.
Seiler failed a case for copyright infringement, contending that
Paylago v. Jarabe
Lucas' Walkers were copied from Seiler's Striders. The district
Issue WON the courts erred in the admission of the secondary
court,
evidence presented in lieu of an unregistered deed of sale when
the loss or destruction of the original document has not been
a. Who knew the fact of its loss, or
established?
b. By anyone who has made, in the judgment of the court, a
sufficient examination in the place where the document or
NO, the destruction of the instrument may be proved by any
papers of similar character are usually kept by the person
person knowing the fact. The loss may be shown by any person:
in whose custody the document lost was, and has been
a. Who knew the fact of its loss, or
unable to find it; or
b. By anyone who has made, in the judgment of the court, a
c. Who has made any other investigation which is sufficient
sufficient examination of the place or places where the
to satisfy the court that the instrument is indeed lost.
document or papers of similar character are kept by the
person in whose custody the document lost was, and has Govt. v. Martinez
been unable to find it; or has made any other
The best evidence of the contents of a written instrument consists
investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that
in the actual production of the instrument itself, and the general
the instrument is indeed lost.
rule is that the secondary evidence of its contents cannot be
admitted until the nonproduction of the original has been
It is not even necessary to prove its loss beyond all possibility of
satisfactorily accounted for.
mistake. A reasonable probability of its loss is sufficient, and this
may be shown by a bona fide and diligent search, fruitlessly made,
According to section 321 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
for it in places where it is likely to be found.
introduction of secondary evidence in case the instrument sought
to be proven is lost and a reasonable and diligent search has been
Michael & Co. v. Enriquez
made for the original.
The writing itself must be produced unless it has been lost or
destroyed in which case, before its contents may be proved by Ebreo v. Ebreo
other evidence, it must be shown by the person offering the
Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove
secondary evidence:
the contents of the original of the deed, the offeror is mandated to
a. That the document was duly executed and
prove the following:
delivered, where delivery is necessary, and a. The execution and existence of the original
b. That it has been lost or destroyed.
b. The loss and destruction of the original or its non-
production in court; and
The execution and delivery of the document may be established
c. Unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith on the
by:
part of the offeror.
a. The person or persons who executed it,
b. By the person before whom its execution was
Baroda State bank v. Peck
acknowledged, or
There are no degrees in secondary evidence. They are of equal
c. By any person who was present and saw it executed and
weight and should both be admitted, as there is no primary
delivered or who, after its execution and delivery, saw it
evidence available. In this case, the Court allowed the witness to
and recognized the signatures; or
testify as to the contents of an original letter.
d. By a person to whom the parties to the instruments had
previously confessed the execution thereof. Citibank NA Mastercard v. Teodoro
Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove
The destruction of the instrument may be proved by any person
the contents of the original sales invoices, the offeror must prove
knowing
the following:
the fact. The loss may be shown by any person:
a. The existence or due execution of the original;
 b. The loss and destruction of the original or the reason for
It is also a requisite for the application of the rule that the records
its nonproduction in court; and
and accounts should be made accessible to the adverse party so
c. On the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to
that the company, of the summary may be tested on cross-
which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.
examination
The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss,
What applies to this case is the general rule "that an audit made
and contents. At the sound discretion of the court, this order may
by, or the testimony of, a private auditor, is inadmissible in
be changed if necessary. evidence as proof of the original records, books of accounts,
reports or the like."
Edsa Shangrila v. BF Corp.
The only actual rule that the term “best evidence” denotes is the Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc
rule requiring that the original of a writing must, as a general
Under Sec. 7 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provide that when
proposition, be produced and secondary evidence of its contents is
the original document is in the custody of a public officer or is
not admissible except where the original cannot be had.
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a
certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
Secondary evidence of the contents of a written instrument or
document refers to evidence other than the original instrument or In this case, PCGG only provided photocopies and did not even
document itself. A party may present secondary evidence of the attempt to provide a plausible reason why the originals were not
contents of a writing not only when the original is lost or presented, or any compelling ground why the court should admit
destroyed, but also when it is in the custody or under the control these documents as secondary evidence absent the testimony of
of the adverse party. In either instance, however, certain the witnesses who had executed them.
explanations must be given before a party can resort to secondary
evidence.
The fact that these documents were collected by the PCGG in the
course of its investigations does not make them per se public
Elements to be able to present secondary evidence:
records. PCGG only presented a witness who testified that the
a. Proof of original's existence; public and private documents had been gathered by and taken into
b. Proof of cause of unavailability;
the custody of the PCGG in the course of the Commission’s
c. Offeror is in good faith; and
investigation of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses but
d. Reasonable notice on adverse party and fails or refuses to
she was only competent to testify as to how the documents were
produce such in court.
gathered and not as to the contents.
Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Workers
Petitioner argues that the rule that “when the original consists of
Also, while affidavits may be considered as public documents if
numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined
they are acknowledged before a notary public, these Affidavits are
in court without great loss-of time and the fact sought to be
still classified as hearsay evidence. The reason for this rule is that
established from them is of only general result of the whole, the
they are not generally prepared by the affiant, but by another one
original writings need not be produced” should be applied.
who uses his or her own language in writing the affiant's
statements, parts of which may thus be either omitted or
SC held in negative. That rule cannot be applied in this case
misunderstood by the one writing them.
because the voluminous character of the records, on which the
accountants' reports were based, was not duly established
Rule 130, Sec. 10 [Parole Evidence
Rule] Augustin v. Ziemer
A says that his oral contract with B was that of a sale of property
while B says that it was a lease contract. A adduced receipts to
prove that the contract was one of a sale.
 When the operation of the contract is made to depend upon the
SC held that the rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict occurrence of an event, which, for that reason is a condition
a writing precedent, such may be established by parol evidence. This is not
does not apply to a mere receipt. The parol evidence rule does not varying the terms of the written contract by extrinsic agreement,
apply to receipts unless they are of a contractual nature. The for the simple reason that there is no contract in existence; there
receipts in question are mere receipts. They are not contractual. is nothing to which to apply the excluding rule

Lechugas v. CA This rule does not prevent the introduction of extrinsic evidence to
The parol evidence rule does not apply where at least one of the show that a supposed contract never became effective by reason
parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written of the failure of some collateral condition or stipulation, pre-
instrument in question and does not base a claim on the requisite to liability" The rule excluding parol evidence to vary or
instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument or the contradict a writing, does not extend so far as to preclude the
relation established thereby. In short, the rule is not applicable admission of extrinsic evidence, to show prior or contemporaneous
where the controversy is between one of the parties to the collateral parol agreements between the parties, but such evidence
document and third persons. may be received, regardless of whether or not the written
agreement contains reference to such collateral.
Martin v. Setter
Where the issue in dispute, even between third parties, is what are PNB v. Seeto
the obligations of A and B to one another, and those obligations Parol evidence is admissible to prove "an independent or collateral
are stated in a written contract, the parol evidence rule is agreement which constituted an inducement to the making of the
applicable. The written contract represents the truth and the whole sale or part of the consideration therefor.” Hence, parol evidence is
truth of the contractual obligations of A and B in whatever way and admissible to show that parties signing as principals merely did so
between whatever parties an inquiry as to such obligations may as sureties.
become important.
If, the supposed assurances that the drawer had funds and that
To admit parol evidence to the contrary which would not be Seeto would refund the amount of the check if the drawer had no
admitted as between the parties, except for the purpose of funds, were the considerations or reasons that induced the branch
showing either fraud against the third person, or some invalidating agency of PNB to go out of its ordinary practice of not cashing out
facts which would be available to the parties themselves, is to of town checks and accept the check and to pay its face value, the
permit facts to be shown which have no relevancy to the issue of same should be provable by parol, provided, of course, that the
what is the contract between A and B. assurances or inducements offered would not vary, alter, or
destroy the obligations attached by law to the indorsement.
Parol evidence rule applies only in suits between parties to the
instrument. It cannot affect third persons, who, if it were Robles v. Lizarraga Hermanos
otherwise, might be prejudiced by things recited in the writings, The rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a writing
contrary to the truth, through the ignorance, carelessness, or fraud does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of extrinsic
of the parties; and who, therefore, ought not to be precluded from evidence to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol
proving the truth, however contradictory to the written statements agreements between the parties, but such evidence may be
of others. But it does apply to a stranger who seeks to enforce received, regardless of whether or not the written agreement
rights based on the instrument. contains any reference to such collateral agreement, and whether
the action is at law or in equity.
Land Settlement and Dev. Corp. v. Garcia Plantation
It has accordingly been held that, in case of a written contract of
it must not be so clearly connected with the principal transaction
lease, the lessee may prove an independent verbal agreement on
as to be part and parcel of it.
the part of the landlord to put the leased premises in a safe
condition; and a vendor of realty may show by parol evidence that
Laureano v. Kilayco
crops growing on the land were reserved, though no such
A and B entered into an oral agreement wherein A was to convey
reservation was made in the deed of conveyance.
properties to B for B to ultimately reconvey it However, this
agreement was not stated in the written document (conveyance)
The rule that a preliminary or contemporaneous oral agreement is
evidencing the transfer of property from A to B; what was stated
not admissible to vary a written contract appears to have more
there instead was that the consideration for the transfer was
particular reference to the obligation expressed in the written
P49,550. B did not reconvey the property. Can A adduce evidence
agreement, and the rule had never been interpreted as being
to prove the real agreement? Yes.
applicable to matters of consideration or inducement. In the case
before us the written contract is complete in itself; the oral
The evidence excluded was not offered for the purpose of varying
agreement is also complete in itself, and it is a collateral to the
the terms of the conveyance between the parties but to show a
written contract, notwithstanding the fact that it deals with related
contemporaneous collateral agreement by which the conveyance
matters.
could be defeated and terminated. It is a well-known principle in
law that oral evidence is admissible to show that a conveyance,
Mitchell v. Lath
absolute in form, is in fact a mortgage.
Parol evidence rule applies to attempts to modify a written
contract by parol. However, it does not affect a parol collateral
If a written agreement states something different from that orally
contract distinct from and independent of the written contract.
agreed upon by the parties [which was simultaneously made with
the written one], oral evidence is admissible to prove what was
Two entirely distinct contracts, each for a separate consideration,
agreed upon in the oral agreement that was not reflected in the
may be made at the same time and will be distinct legally. Where,
written agreement.
however, one agreement is entered into wholly or partly in
consideration of the simultaneous agreement to enter into another,
Yu Tek v. Gonzales
the transactions are necessarily bound together. Then, if one of the
While parol evidence is admissibile in a variety of ways to explain
agreements is oral and the other is written, the problem arises
the meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the purpose of
whether the bond is sufficiently close to prevent proof of the oral
incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous
agreement.
conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing, unless
there has been fraud or mistake.
Before an oral agreement is received to vary a written contract, at
least 3 conditions must exist:
Palanca v. Fred Wilson &Co.
a. Agreement must, in form, be a collateral one;
[This is the weirdly written case about the purchase of a distilling
b. It must not contradict express or implied provisions of the
machine and its alcohol-making capacity]
written contract; and
If there is ambiguity with terms, Section 285 of the Code of Civil
c. It must be one that parties would not ordinarily be
Procedure provides that, to contain all the terms, nevertheless
expected to embody in the writing.
"does not exclude other evidence of the circumstances under which
Put in another way, an inspection of the written contract, read in
the agreement was made, or to which it relates, or to explain an
the light of surrounding circumstances must not indicate that the
intrinsic ambiguity
writing appears “to contain the engagements of the parties, and to
define the object and measure the extent of such engagement.” Or
ACI Phil. Inc. v. Coquia
again,
The written document is the best evidence of its own contents.
When the written contract is established as the repository of the
parties' stipulations, any other evidence is excluded and the same DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
cannot be used as a substitute for such contract, nor even to alter
Disqualification by Reason of Marriage
or contradict them.

This rule, however, is not without exception. Section 9, Rule 130 of Alvarez v. Ramirez - Generally, spouses are not allowed to testify
the Rules of Court states that a party may present evidence to for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse,
modify, explain or add to the terms of the agreement if he puts in except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case
issue in his pleading the failure of the written agreement to for a crime committed by one against the other or the latters direct
express the true intent and agreement of the parties. Since an descendants or ascendants. But there are exceptions. For instance,
exception to the parol evidence rule was squarely raised as an where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there
issue in the answer, the trial court should not have been so is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility
inflexible as to completely disregard ACI's evidence. which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and
tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of interests disappears and
Seaoil Petroleum Corp. v. Autocorp Group the consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-
Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a existent.
contract, it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the
contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not When an offense directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs,
mentioned at all in the writing unless there has been fraud or the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the statute
mistake. Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a
is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the criminal prosecution for a crime committed by one against the
operation of a valid contract. other. Here, the offense of arson directly impaired the conjugal
relation between the husband and the wife-witness (the
Marquez v. Espejo complainant is the wife’s sister). Further, prior to the offense, they
The Parol Evidence Rule excludes parol or extrinsic evidence by were already separated de facto for almost 6 mos.
which a party seeks to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from the
terms of a valid agreement or instrument People v. Hon. Castañeda - Husband was charged with
falsification of document for forging his husband’s signature. He
The parol evidence rule may not be invoked where at least 1 of the sought to disqualify his wife as witness.
parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of a party to the written
document in question, and does not base his claim on the The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the
instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument. conjugal relation is too narrow; and the rule that any offense
remotely or indirectly affecting domestic within the exception is too
Lequin v. Sps. Vizconde broad. The better rule is that, when an offense directly attacks, or
While a written contract is considered as an evidence of the directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes within
agreement between the parties, a party may present evidence to the exception to the statute that one shall not be a witness against
modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committed
puts in issue in his pleading the failure of the written agreement to by one against the other.
express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto.
Ordono v. Daquigan - In the law of evidence, the rape
perpetrated by the father against his daughter is a crime
committed by him against his wife (the victim’s mother). The trial
court did not err in
holding that Catalina Ordoño could testify against her husband,
A was acquitted and the law declared as unconstitutional for just
Avelino Ordoño, in the case where he is being tried for having
as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution's witnesses
raped their daughter, Leonora.
for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to
present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a
Lezama v. Rodriguez - Where the wife is a co-defendant in a suit
fundamental element of due process of law.
charging fraud against the spouses, the wife cannot be compelled
to testify as an adverse party witness. The purpose of the
Oath/Affirmation
disqualification is the natural repugnance in every fair-minded
person to compelling a wife or husband to be the means of the
U.S. v. Looper - Accused was not allowed to testify for himself by
other's condemnation and to subjecting the culprit to the
lower courts because he refused to take an oath/affirmation
humiliation of being condemned by the words of his intimate life because of his religion.
partner.

US v. Antipolo - Widow may testify as to the dying declaration of

Court ruled that if one’s religion made repugnant or impossible for
her deceased husband with regards to the latter’s death. him an appeal to God or the raising of a hand as part of an oath or
affirmation (and in this regard, his statement was to be believed),
Obviously, when a person at the point of death makes a statement
all the district judge need do is to make inquiry as to what form of
regarding the manner in which he received those injuries, the
oath or affirmation would not offend defendant's religious beliefs
communication is in no sense confidential. On the contrary, such a
but would give rise to a duty to speak the truth. All that law
communication is made for the express purpose that it may be
requires is a form or statement which impresses upon the mind
communicated after the death of the declarant to the authorities
and conscience of a witness the necessity for telling the truth.
concerned in inquiring into the cause of his death.
People v. Zheng Bai Hui - Accused raises the issue that one of
Zulueta v. CA - A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed prosecution’s witnesses did not take an oath, arguing that the such
his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the
disqualified the witness.
constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her. Neither
may be examined without the consent of the other as to any
SC ruled that if a party ought to have known of the lack of oath
communication received in confidence by one from the other
but did not object thereto, he cannot later be heard raising such an
during the marriage, save for specified exceptions.
objection.
This is the outlier case which rendered forcibly taken items by the Attorney-Client Privilege
wife from her husband as inadmissible for violating Constitutional
right of privacy of communication and correspondence. Regala v. Sandiganbayan - ACCRA lawyers were made
defendants in a case when they refused to disclosed the name of
Right to Compulsory Process for Obtaining Witnesses their principals. Issue was WON client’s identity was within the
ambit of the attorney-client privilege.
Washington v. Texas - A was convicted of murder because he
was not allowed by a Texas law to adduce the testimonial evidence GR: A lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge
of B who was the alleged true murderer. B was also convicted of the name or identity of this client
murder. The laws provided that persons charged or convicted as
co- participants in the same crime could not testify for one Reasons for GR:
another, although there was no bar to their testifying for the State.
 1. The court has a right to know that the client whose
Summarizing these exceptions, information relating to the identity
privileged information is sought to be protected is flesh
of a client may fall within the ambit of the privilege when the
and blood.
client's name itself has an independent significance, such that
2. The privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client
disclosure would then reveal client confidences.
relationship has been established. The attorney-client
privilege does not attach until there is a client.
3. The privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of There are distinctions where: (1) a case where a client takes on
the relationship. the services of a lawyer for illicit purposes, and (2) where the
4. Due process considerations require that the opposing party client thinks he might have previously committed something illegal
should, as a general rule, know his adversary. and consults his attorney about it. The first one is not privileged
but the other one is.
Exceptions:
1. Client identity is privileged where a strong probability People v. Sandiganbayan - A distinction must be made between
exists that revealing the client's name would implicate that confidential communications relating to past crimes already
client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's committed, and future crimes intended to be committed, by the
advice. client. An announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not
2. Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability. included within the confidences which his attorney is bound to
3. Where disclosure of the identity would be tantamount to respect.
disclosing an otherwise protected confidential
communication. For the application of the attorney-client privilege, the period to be
4. Where the circumstances of the case are such that the considered is the date when the privileged communication was
name of the client is material only for the purpose of made by the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime
showing an acknowledgment of guilt on the part of such committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be
client of the very offenses on account of which the committed in the future.
attorney was employed.
5. Where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has
been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is If the client seeks his lawyer's advice with respect to a crime that
intended to be confidential, the identity of the client has the former has theretofore committed, he is given the protection of
been held to be privileged, since such revelation would a virtual confessional seal which the attorney-client privilege
otherwise result in disclosure of the entire transaction. declares cannot be broken by the attorney without the client's
6. The privilege may be recognized where so much of the consent. The same privileged confidentiality, however, does not
actual communication has already been disclosed [not attach with regard to a crime which a client intends to commit
necessarily by the attorney, but by independent sources as thereafter or in the future and for purposes of which he seeks the
well] that identification of the client [or of fees paid] lawyer's advice.
amounts to disclosure of a confidential communication.
[Note: this is in dissenting opinion] Barton v. Leyte - The law protects the client from the effect of
7. Where the government's lawyers have no case against an disclosures made by him to his attorney in the confidence of the
attorney's client unless, by revealing the client's name, the legal relation, but when such a document, containing admissions of
said name would furnish the only link that would form the the client, comes to the hand of a third party, and reaches the
chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a adversary, it is admissible in evidence.
crime, the client's name is privileged. [Last Link Doctrine]
When papers are offered in evidence, a court will take no notice of
People v. Cañete - Under Sections 19 to 21 of the Rule on
how they were obtained, whether legally or illegally, properly or
Examination of a Child Witness, child witnesses may testify in a
improperly; nor will it form a collateral issue to try that question.
narrative form and leading questions may be allowed by the trial
court in all stages of the examination if the same will further the
Physician-Patient Relationship
interest of justice.
Khron v. CA - Requisites in order that the physician-patient
privilege may be successfully invoked: Objections to questions should be couched in a manner so as not
a. the privilege is claimed in a civil case; to mislead, confuse, frighten and intimidate the child:
b. the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one
duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; Sec. 19. Mode of questioning. — The court shall exercise control
c. such person acquired the information while he was over the questioning of children so as to (1) facilitate the
attending to the patient in his professional capacity; ascertainment of the truth, (2) ensure that questions are stated in
d. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that a form appropriate to the developmental level of the child, (3)
capacity; and, protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment, and
e. the information was confidential and, if disclosed, would (4) avoid waste of time.
blacken the reputation (formerly character) of the patient.
Government Privilege
Here, the husband that wished to testify on a psychiatric evaluation
report was allowed since he was not the physician. Almonte v. Vasquez - Where the claim of confidentiality does not
rest on the need to protect military, diplomatic or other national
Gonzales v. CA - Physician-patient privilege requisites: security secrets but on a general public interest in the
confidentiality of his conversations, courts have declined to find in
1. the action in which the advice or treatment given or any the Constitution an absolute privilege of the President against a
information is to be used is a civil case; subpoena considered essential to the enforcement of criminal
2. the relation of physician and patient existed between the laws.
person claiming the privilege or his legal representative
and the physician; Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers
3. the advice or treatment given by him or any information - Requirements to claim executive privilege:
was acquired by the physician while professionally a. The protected communication must relate to a
attending the patient; quintessential and non-delegable presidential power;
4. the information was necessary for the performance of his b. It must be authored, solicited, and received by a close
professional duty; and advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test
5. the disclosure of the information would tend to blacken the is that an advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the
reputation of the patient. President; and,
c. It may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such
that the information sought “likely contains important evidence,”
Here, the first four were present. The last one was also present
and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an
because they wanted to establish the patient’s sterility by
appropriate investigating authority.
revealing that he had gonorrhea.

Examination of Child Witness 2 Kinds of Executive Privilege:

 a. Presidential Communications Privilege - communications,
used in decision-making, because the end-result would be the
documents or other materials that reflect presidential
disclosure of confidential information that could subject them to
decision-making and deliberations and that the President
criminal prosecution. This is to be differentiated from a situation
believes should remain confidential (Applies to decision-
where the testimony is on a matter which is external to their
making of President)
adjudicatory functions and duties.
b. Deliberative Process Privilege- advisory opinions,
recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a
Also, with respect to Court officials and employees, the same rules
process by which governmental decisions and policies are
on confidentiality that apply to justices and judges apply to them.
formulated (Applies to decision-making of executive
They are barred from disclosing:
officials)
1. the result of the raffle of cases
2. the actions taken by the Court on each case included in the
agenda of the Court’s session
Presidential communications privilege applies to documents in their
3. the deliberations of the Members in court sessions on
entirety, and covers final and post-decisional materials as well as
cases and matters pending before it.
pre-deliberative ones. Hence, congressional or judicial negation of
the presidential communications privilege is always subject to
They are subject as well to the disqualification by reason of
greater scrutiny than denial of the deliberative process privilege.
privileged communication and the sub judice rule.

In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents and the

Attendance of Court Officials and Employees as Witnesses To summarize these rules, the following are privileged documents
under the Subpoenas (related to Corona’s Prosecution) - or communications, and are not subject to disclosure:
Court employees were not allowed to be compelled to appear as
witnesses before the impeachment court and present the (1) Court actions such as the result of the raffle of cases and the
documents and testify on court records. actions taken by the Court on each case included in the agenda of
the Court’s session on acts done material to pending cases, except
To qualify under the deliberative process privilege, the document where a party litigant requests information on the result of the
must be: raffle of the case, pursuant to Rule 7, Section 3 of the IRSC;
1. predicisional: precedes, in temporal sequence, the decision
to which it relates; (2) Court deliberations or the deliberations of the Members in court
2. deliberative: whether disclosure of the information would sessions on cases and matters pending before the Court;
discourage candid discussion

Two other grounds for denying access: (3) Court records which are “predecisional” and “deliberative” in
1. disqualification by reason of privileged communication nature, in particular, documents and other communications which
are part of or related to the deliberative process, i.e., notes,
2. pendency of an action or matter
drafts, research papers, internal discussions, internal memoranda,
records of internal deliberations, and similar papers.
Members of the Court may not be compelled to testify in the
impeachment proceedings against the CJ or other Members of the
Court about information they acquired in the performance of their (4) Confidential Information secured by justices, judges, court
official function of adjudication, such as information on how officials and employees in the course of their official functions,
deliberations were conducted or the material inputs that the mentioned in (2) and (3) above, are privileged even after their
justices term of office.
(5) Records of cases that are still pending for decision are
In Re: Farber - SC of New Jersey ruled that although the shield
privileged materials that cannot be disclosed, except only for
law is constitutional on its face, when applied to the facts of the
pleadings, orders and resolutions that have been made available
case, it would deny the criminal defendant Jascalevich the right to
by the court to the general public.
have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. Therefore, the
State Constitutional guarantee of a Jascalevich’s right to confront
(6) The principle of comity or inter-departmental courtesy witnesses prevailed over the State statute granting privilege to
demands that the highest officials of each department be exempt newspersons regarding their source of confidential information.
from the compulsory processes of the other departments.
Compared to Sotto Law which provides: Without prejudice to his
(7) These privileges belong to the Supreme Court as an institution, liability under the civil and criminal laws, the publisher, editor,
not to any justice or judge in his or her individual capacity. Since columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine
the Court is higher than the individual justices or judges, no sitting or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal
or retired justice or judge, not even the Chief Justice, may claim the source of any news-report or information appearing in said
exception without the consent of the Court. publication which was related in confidence to such publisher,
editor or reporter unless the court or a House or committee of
Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board - This concerns a motion for Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of
production of subject documents pursuant to Rule 27 filed by the the State.
BSP (Modes of Discovery).
Trade Secrets
A party is ordinarily entitled to the production of books, documents
and papers which are material and relevant to the establishment of Air Philippines v. Penswell - A moved that B give a detailed list
his cause of action or defense. of the ingredients/chemical components of certain products
complained of. SC ruled that B may not be compelled to disclose
On the ground of public policy, the rules providing for production trade secrets.
and inspection of books and papers do not authorize the
production or inspection of privileged matter, that is, books,
A trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool, mechanism or
papers which because of their confidential and privileged character
compound known only to its owner and those of his employees to
could not be received in evidence.
whom it is necessary to confide it. The definition also extends to a
secret formula or process not patented, but known only to certain
SC ruled that tapes and transcripts of the MB’s deliberations on the
individuals using it in compounding some article of trade having a
closure of Banco Filipino was not privileged as there was no specific
commercial value.
provision in the Central Bank Act which prohibits absolutely the
courts from conducting an inquiry on said deliberations when these
are relevant or material to a matter subject of a suit pending A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device, or
before it. compilation of information that:
1. Is used in one's business; and
Further, sec. 21 of Rule 130 is intended not for the protection of 2. Gives the employer an opportunity to obtain an advantage
public officers but for the protection of public interest. Where there over competitors who do not possess the information.
is no public interest that would be prejudiced, this invoked rule will American Jurisprudence uses the following factors to determine if an
not be applicable. information is a trade secret:

1. The extent to which the information is known outside of

the employer's business;
 2. The extent to which the information is known by
Filial Privilege
employees and others involved in the business;
3. The extent of measures taken by the employer to guard
People v. Invencion - The rule on filial privilege is not strictly a
the secrecy of the information;
rule on disqualification because a descendant is not incompetent or
4. The value of the information to the employer and to
disqualified to testify against an ascendant.The rule refers to a
competitors;
privilege not to testify, which can be invoked or waived like other
5. The amount of effort or money expended by the company
privileges. Hence, a son may testify against his father if he
in developing the information; and
volunteers to do so.
6. The extent to which the information could be easily or
readily obtained through an independent source.
Lee v. CA - Filial privilege cannot apply to stepparents and
stepchildren because the rule applies only to "direct" ascendants
and descendants, a family tie connected by a common ancestry. A
stepdaughter has no common ancestry by her stepmother and may
In Cocoland, the parameters in the determination of trade secrets be compelled to testify against her.
were set to be such substantial factual basis that can withstand
judicial scrutiny.

RES INTER ALIAS ACTAS

There are other privileged matters that are not mentioned by Rule
130. Among them are the following: (a) editors may not be
compelled to disclose the source of published news; (b) voters People v. Gaudia - Accused’s parents tried to compromise with
may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted; (c) trade the parents of the rape victim. SC ruled that following the principle
secrets; of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet, the actions of
(d) information contained in tax census returns; and (d) bank accused’s parents cannot prejudice the him, since he was not a
deposits. party to the said conversation, nor was it shown that he was privy
to the offer of compromise made by them to the mother of the
B’s products were also not consumer products, who are required to victim. Nonetheless, the circumstantial evidence was enough to
indicate their general make or active ingredients, as consumer convict the accused.
products refer to goods, services and credits, debts or obligations
which are primarily for personal, family, household or agricultural Interlocking Confessions
purposes, which shall include, but not be limited to, food, drugs,
cosmetics, and devices. People v. Lising - Extrajudicial statements are as a rule,
admissible as against their respective declarants, pursuant to the
Also, under the Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear rule that the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant
Wastes Control Act of 1990, trade secrets are protected. It is true fact may be given in evidence against him. This is based upon the
that under the same Act, the DENR may release information; presumption that no man would declare anything against himself,
however, the clear import of the law is that said authority is limited unless such declarations were true. A man’s act, conduct and
by the right to confidentiality of the manufacturer, processor or declarations wherever made, provided they be voluntary, are
distributor, which information may be released only to a medical admissible against him, for the reason that it is fair to presume
research or scientific institution where the information is needed that they correspond with the truth and it is his fault if they are
for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment of a person not.
exposed to the chemical substance or mixture. A failed to show
this applies.
The rule that an extrajudicial statement is evidence only against
the person making it, also recognizes various exceptions. One such
The same cannot be said when the defendant's own confession is
exception worth noting is the rule that where several extrajudicial
properly before the jury. The possible prejudice resulting from the
statements had been made by several persons charged with an
failure of the jury to follow the trial court's instructions is not so
offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to
"devastating" or "vital" to the confessing defendant to require
said several confessions, the facts that the statements are in all
departure from the general rule allowing admission of evidence
material respects identical, is confirmatory of the confession of the
with limiting instructions.
co-defendants and is admissible against other persons implicated
therein.
The Court therefore held that admissions of interlocking
confessions with proper limiting instructions conforms to the
They are also admissible as circumstantial evidence against the requirements of the 6th and 14th Amendments of the United
person implicated therein to show the probability of the latters States Constitution.
actual participation in the commission of the crime and may
likewise serve as corroborative evidence if it is clear from other Declaration Against One’s Interest
facts and circumstances that other persons had participated in the
perpetration of the crime charged and proved. These are known as Republic v. Galindez - Under Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules
interlocking confessions. on Evidence, the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. This rule is
People v. Muit - An indicia of voluntariness in the execution of based upon the notion that no man would make any declaration
extrajudicial statements is that each contains many details and against himself, unless it is true.
facts which the investigating officers could not have known and
could not have supplied, without the knowledge and information Admissions/Confessions
given by appellants.
[Doctrine in People v. Lising reiterated] People v. Sagabala - Between the positive and categorical
testimony of a rape victim, duly corroborated by a disinterested
Here, ¾ co-accused’s extrajudicial statements were found to have witness on one hand, and the accused’s bare denial on the other, it
strengthened the case against one of the co-accused who did not is a time honored principle that the former generally prevails,
execute an extrajudicial statement. Nonetheless, SC held that even especially if there is no sufficient motive on the part of the
without the statements, testimonial evidence supplied by prosecution witnesses to falsely testify against appellant.
prosecution was enough to convict him.
Accused offered to marry the complainant in his desperate attempt
Parker v. Rudolph - When the confessing co-defendant has to free himself from any liability. In a number of cases, we have
chosen not to take the stand and the implicated defendant has held that an offer of marriage is considered an admission of guilt
made no extrajudicial admission of guilt, limiting instructions by the accused.
(court tells jury that that each confession could be used only
against the defendant who gave it and could not be considered as People v. Satorre -
evidence of a co-defendant's guilt) cannot be accepted as Admission - an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
adequate to safeguard the defendant's rights under the relevant fact.
Confrontation Clause.
Confession - declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of
Under such circumstances, the "practical and human limitations of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein.
the jury system" override the theoretically sound premise that a
jury will follow the trial court's instructions. Both may be given in evidence against the person admitting or
confessing. On the whole, a confession is a declaration made at
On the question of whether a confession is made voluntarily, the
any time by a person, voluntarily and without compulsion or
age, character, and circumstances prevailing at the time it was
inducement, stating or acknowledging that he had committed or
made must be considered. Much depends upon the situation and
participated in the commission of a crime.
surroundings of the accused. This is the position taken by the
courts, whatever the theory of exclusion of incriminating
In this case, since the declaration was not put in writing and made
statements may be. The intelligence of the accused or want of it
out of court, it is an oral extrajudicial confession. There is no
must also be taken into account. It must be shown that the
question as to the admissibility of the confession because as far as
defendant realized the import of his act.
admissibility is concerned, Rule 130, Section 33 of the Rules of
Court makes no distinction whether the confession is judicial or
extrajudicial. Here, due to the personal circumstances of accused (19 year old
farmer who did not finish his studies), the voluntariness of his
The rationale for the admissibility of a confession is that if it is alleged oral confession may not be definitively appraised and
made freely and voluntarily, a confession constitutes evidence of a evaluated.
high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no
sane person or one of normal mind will deliberately and knowingly At any rate, an extrajudicial confession forms but a prima facie
confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime, unless prompted case against the party by whom it is made. Such confessions are
by truth and conscience. not conclusive proof of that which they state; it may be proved that
they were uttered in ignorance, or levity, or mistake; and hence,
Accordingly, the basic test for the validity of a confession is was it they are, at best, to be regarded as only cumulative proof which
voluntarily and freely made. The term voluntary means that the affords but a precarious support and on which, when
accused speaks of his free will and accord, without inducement of uncorroborated, a verdict cannot be permitted to rest.
any kind, and with a full and complete knowledge of the nature
and consequences of the confession, and when the speaking is so To be sure, a confession is not required to be in any particular
free from influences affecting the will of the accused, at the time form. It may be oral or written, formal or informal in character. It
the confession was made, that it renders it admissible in evidence may be recorded on video tape, sound motion pictures, or tape. 14
against him. Plainly, the admissibility of a confession in evidence However, while not required to be in writing to be admissible in
hinges on its voluntariness. evidence, it is advisable, if not otherwise recorded by video tape or
other means, to reduce the confession to writing. This adds weight
The voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its to the confession and helps convince the court that it was freely
language such that if, upon its face, the confession exhibits no and voluntarily made. If possible the confession, after being
suspicious circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its integrity, it reduced to writing, should be read to the defendant, have it read
being replete with details which could only be supplied by the by defendant, have him sign it, and have it attested by witnesses.
accused reflecting spontaneity and coherence, it may be
considered voluntary. The problem with appraising voluntariness Indeed, an extrajudicial confession will not support a conviction
occurs when the confession is an oral extrajudicial confession where it is uncorroborated. There must be such corroboration that,
because the proof of voluntariness cannot be inferred from the when considered in connection with confession, will show the guilt
testimony of a witness who allegedly heard the confessant since of accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
there is no written proof that such confession was voluntarily
made. People v. Villacorta [Also People v. Andan] - This case is
about destructive arsona committed by Villacorta who surrendered
to the Kagawads and was asked to put her confession in writing.
Case only
cited People v. Andan. Such wherein the accused confessed to the
otherwise competent to testify as a witness, who heard the
mayor. It held that:
confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of what he
heard if he heard and understood it. The said witness need not
Plainly, any person under investigation for the commission of an
repeat verbatim the oral confession; it suffices if he gives its
offense shall have the right (1) to remain silent; (2) to have
substance. By analogy, that rule applies to oral extrajudicial
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice;
admissions.
and (3) to be informed of such rights. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Any
People v. Lauga - Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the
confession or admission obtained in violation of this provision is
nature of watch groups, as in the case of the bantay bayan, are
inadmissible in evidence against him.
recognized by the local government unit to perform functions
relating to the preservation of peace and order at the barangay
When accused talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a
level. Thus, any inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related
law enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession to him did not
function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his
violate his constitutional rights. The constitutional procedures on
constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of
custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement,
the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is
not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an
concerned.
ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted having
committed the crime. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory
Here, the extrajudicial confession of Lauga to a bantay-bayan,
disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions.
which was taken without counsel, was found inadmissible in
evidence.
People v. Erguiza - An offer of compromise from an unauthorized
person cannot amount to an admission of the party himself.
People v. Buntag -
Although the Court has held in some cases that an attempt of the
GR: Extrajudicial confession or admission of one accused is
parents of the accused to settle the case is an implied admission of
admissible only against the said accused but is inadmissible
guilt, we believe that the better rule is that for a compromise to against the other accused.
amount to an implied admission of guilt, the accused should have
been present or at least authorized the proposed compromise.
Ex: If the declarant/admitter repeats in court his extrajudicial
People v. Maqueda - A confession is an acknowledgment in
confession during trial and the other accused is accorded the
express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the
opportunity to cross-examine the admitter, such confession or
crime charged, while an admission is a statement by the accused,
admission is admissible against both accused. The extrajudicial
direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in
confession or admission when repeated during the trial is
connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt. In other
transposed into judicial admissions.
words, an admission is something less than a confession, and is
but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in
In this case, A made extrajudicial admissions against his interest in
itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction and which tends only
his sworn statement, and not a confession. So did B in his counter-
to establish the ultimate fact of guilt. And under Section 3 of Rule
affidavit. Such admissions in the form of affidavits, made in the
133, an extrajudicial confession made by the accused is not
MTC in the course of its preliminary investigation, are high quality
sufficient for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
evidence. MCTC Judge Antonio Sarce testified on the said sworn
delicti.
statement and counter-affidavit and was cross-examined.
Moreover, some of the extrajudicial inculpatory admissions of one
Declarations of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the appellant are identical with some of the extrajudicial inculpatory
offense may be given in evidence against him and any person,
admissions of the other, and vice versa. This corroborates and
confirms their veracity. Such admissions, made without
collusion, are akin to
interlocking extrajudicial confessions. They are admissible as
starting of the car, after making three stops a short time before
circumstantial evidence against the other appellant implicated
the accident in which respondent was injured, tended to prove the
therein to show the probability of his participation in the
state of his mind or the condition of his nerves, that is, that he was
commission of the crime and as corroborative evidence against him
in a hurry, and so was relevant and of some probative value on the
issue as to whether he failed to give respondent an opportunity to
Habits/Customs
get beyond the overhang of the car before starting it. (Mahaba kasi
yung streetcar so pagbaba nung respondent, kumaliwa yung
Boston Bank v. Manalo - In this case, CA supplied a term in a streetcar tapos nabunggo siya).
contract providing for a 120-monthly installment saying that it was
a business practice of XEI in granting all lot buyers the right to pay Lejano v. People/People v. Webb [Vizconde Massacre] -
the balance of the purchase price in installments of 120 months. [better to read long case because I don’t know what exactly the
doctrine is. It was all factual]
SC held that it was erroneous as plaintiffs failed to allege that as a Essentially, the prosecution of Webb was based on Alfaro’s
matter of business usage, habit or pattern of conduct, XEI granted testimony. Court said that Alfaro was NBI’s “asset," a stool pigeon,
all lot buyers the right to pay in installments of 120. one who earned her living by fraternizing with criminals so she
could squeal on them to her NBI handlers. She had to live a life of
lies to get rewards that would pay for her subsistence and vices.
RoC provides that evidence that one did a certain thing at one time
SC just poked holes at her supposed lies.
is not admissible to prove that he did the same or similar thing at
another time, although such evidence may be received to prove
For a positive identification to be acceptable:
habit, usage, pattern of conduct or the intent of the parties.
First, the positive identification of the offender must come from a
credible witness. She is credible who can be trusted to tell the
The offering party must establish the degree of specificity and
truth, usually based on past experiences with her. Her word has,
frequency of uniform response that ensures more than a mere
to one who knows her, its weight in gold.
tendency to act in a given manner but rather, conduct that is
And second, the witness’ story of what she personally saw must be
semi- automatic in nature. The key criteria are adequacy of
believable, not inherently contrived. A witness who testifies about
sampling and uniformity or response.
something she never saw runs into inconsistencies and makes
bewildering claims.
Dallas Railway and Terminal v. Farnsworth -
GR: when the question is whether or not a person has been Here, Alfaro and her testimony fail to meet the above criteria.
negligent, evidence is not admissible to show that he has been She did not show up at the NBI as a spontaneous witness bothered
guilty of a similar act of negligence or even habitually negligent by her conscience. She had been hanging around that agency for
upon a similar occasion." sometime as a stool pigeon, one paid for mixing up with criminals
and squealing on them. Police assets are often criminals
The reason for the rule is the fundamental principle that evidence themselves. She was the prosecution’s worst possible choice for a
must be relevant to the facts in issue in the case on trial and tend witness. Indeed, her superior testified that she volunteered to play
to prove or disprove those facts, evidence as to collateral facts not the role of a witness in the Vizconde killings when she could not
being admissible produce a man she promised to the NBI.
Ex: Unless the acts are connected in some special way, indicating
a relevancy beyond mere similarity in certain particulars Re: Webb’s alibi:
To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear, and
In this case, testimony that the operator of the streetcar hurried satisfactory evidence that
his
 a. he was present at another place at the time of the
accused. It is merely hearsay evidence as far as the other accused
perpetration of the crime, and
are concerned.
b. that it was physically impossible for him to be at
the scene of the crime
Here, Webb proved that he was in U.S. at time of the commission
of the crime.
The settled rule is that the silence of an accused in criminal cases,
meaning his failure or refusal to testify, may not be taken as
Admissions by Conspirator
evidence against him, and that he may refuse to answer an
incriminating question. It has also been held that while an accused
(Watashi wa) Tamargo v. Awidan -
is under custody, his silence may not be taken as evidence against
GR: The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a
him as he has a right to remain silent; his silence when in custody
party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of
may not be used as evidence against him, otherwise, his right of
another. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only
silence would be illusory.
on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused
and is considered as hearsay against them.
We hold that the better rule is that the silence of an accused under
custody, or his failure to deny statements by another implicating
Ex: Admission by conspirator. This rule prescribes that the act or
him in a crime, especially when such accused is neither asked to
declaration of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during
comment or reply to such implications or accusations, cannot be
its existence may be given in evidence against co-conspirators
considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the
provided that the conspiracy is shown by independent evidence
commission of the crime. Such an inference of acquiescence drawn
aside from the extrajudicial confession.
from his silence or failure to deny the statement would appear
incompatible with the right of an accused against self-
Requisites:
incrimination.
a. the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the
admission itself
People v. Green - An incriminating statement uttered by a third
b. the admission relates to the common object and
party in the presence of a defendant is deemed not to be hearsay,
c. it has been made while the declarant was engaged in
and therefore admissible against the defendant, when the evidence
carrying out the conspiracy.
establishes that the defendant demonstrated his or her adoption of
the statement or belief in its truth.
Here, aside from the recanted extrajudicial confession, there was
no evidence of the conspiracy. Hence, the statement is
A defendant's total silence when confronted with accusations of
inadmissible.
criminal conduct may never be deemed an adoptive admission in
subsequent criminal proceedings.
Admission by Silence
Before admitting any such statement into evidence a trial court
People v. Alegre - The extrajudicial confessions of one of the
must determine preliminarily, normally by means of an in camera
conspirators cannot be used as evidence and are not competent
hearing, that the party offering the statement can produce
proof against the 2 other accused, under the principle of "res inter
evidence to support the factual conclusions that:
alios acta alteri nocere non debet" there being no independent
a. the defendant heard and understood the
evidence of conspiracy. As a general rule, the extrajudicial
statement,
declaration of an accused, although deliberately made, is not
b. had knowledge of the contents thereof, and
admissible and does not have probative value against his co-
c. was free from any emotional or physical
impediment which would inhibit an immediate
response.
 Constitution). They are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any
Here, the only circumstance suggesting that Green adopted the admission wrung from the accused in violation of their
incriminating statement of his wife was his failure to respond. In constitutional rights is inadmissible against them.
these circumstances, we conclude that Green was not free from
emotional impediments to an immediate response; hence, Clark's The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude
testimony was not admissible. application of the exclusionary rule because the constitutional
guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to
Inadmissible Confessions all persons, both aliens and citizens.

People v. (Appa, Yip) Yip Wai Ming - Section 17, Article III HEARSAY RULE
provides: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. Any confession, including a re-enactment without
Comilang v. Burcena - What was sought to be admitted in
admonition of the right to silence and to counsel, and without
evidence, and what was actually admitted in evidence, was the fact
counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence.
that the statement was made by Dominga to Margarita, not
necessarily that the matters stated by her were true.
The custodial interrogation of Yip was violative of Section 12,
Article III of the Constitution. The Constitution provides that (3) The said utterance is in the nature of an independently relevant
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section or statement which may be admitted in evidence as such, but not
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible against him. [Yip was necessarily to prove the truth thereof.
allegedly arrested without warrant and beat up to sign an
extrajudicial statement] While it is true that the testimony of a witness regarding a
statement made by another person, if intended to establish the
Exclusionary Rule v. Foreign Nationals truth of the fact asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay
evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in
People v. Wong Chuen Ming - Shabu was found by customs in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was
the accused’s (Hongkong nationals) cereal boxes. Accused were made or the tenor of such statement.
asked to sign the boxes. At Camp Crame, accused were asked to
identify their signatures on the boxes and after having identified Phil. Free Press v. CA - Based on Rule 130, Sec. 36, any
them, they were again made to sign on the plastic bags containing evidence is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the
white crystalline substance inside the boxes bearing their personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of some
signatures. other person not on the witness stand. Consequently, hearsay
evidence whether objected to or not, has no probative value unless
the proponent can show that the evidence falls within the
The signatures of the accused on the boxes, as well as on the
exception to the hearsay rule. Evidence of statement made or a
plastic bags containing shabu, are inadmissible in evidence. The
testimony is hearsay if offered against a party who has no
foreigners were not apprised of their Miranda rights.
opportunity to cross- examine the witness.
The signatures constituted as a tacit admission of the crime
Patula v. People – In a case of Estafa, the prosecution produced
charged for mere possession of shabu. These signatures of
an auditor as well as ledgers that show discrepancy between the
accused are tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial
records of the company as well as the official receipts provided by
confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights (Section
accused. A continuing objection was interposed to the ledgers for
12[1][3], Article III, 1987
being hearsay since those who prepared it were not presented to
Silver v. NY Central - A fifty-year-old woman with Reynaud’s
the court.
disease sustained injuries when the train car she was riding in was
left without heat for approximately four hours, while a transfer was
The theory of the hearsay rule is that when a human utterance is being completed to continue with the trip. As a result of those
offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted, the credit of injuries, plaintiff sued the railroad.
the assertor becomes the basis of inference, and, therefore, the
assertion can be received as evidence only when made on the Evidence that the other passengers did not complain was admitted
witness stand, subject to the test of cross-examination. However, into evidence. Evidence of no complaint is too remote and should
if an extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an assertion to prove not be admitted unless, in addition to the fact that no complaints
the matter asserted but without reference to the truth of the were made, there is evidence of circumstances indicating that
matter asserted, the hearsay rule does not apply. others similarly situated had opportunity for complaining.

To address the problem of controlling inadmissible hearsay as Independently Relevant Statements

evidence to establish the truth in a dispute while also safeguarding
a party’s right to cross-examine her adversary’s witness, the ROC People v. Cusi – In an extrajudicial confession, co-accused
offers two solutions: revealed that other persons conspired with him to commit the
a. Require that all the witnesses in a judicial trial or offense and named each of his co-accused. The prosecutor then
hearing be examined only in court under oath or asked the witness to mention in court the names of accused’s co-
affirmation (Sec. 1, Rule 132) conspirators. Defense objected for being hearsay.
b. Require that all witnesses be subject to the cross
examination by the adverse party (Sec. 6, R132) While testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by
another person, if intended to establish the truth of the facts
Also, this is not a case of documents prepared in regular course of asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay evidence, it is
business. The following requisites were not proven: otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is
a. The person who made the entry must be dead or merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the
unable to testify; tenor of such statement.
b. The entries were made at or near the time of the
In this case, the purpose of the prosecutor is to establish the fact
transactions to which they refer;
that the accused had mentioned to a police officer the names of
c. The entrant was in a position to know the facts those who conspired with him to commit the offense charged,
stated in the entries; without claiming that the statement would be competent and
d. The entries were made in his professional capacity admissible evidence to show that the persons so named really
or in the performance of a duty, whether legal, conspired with him.
contractual, moral, or religious;
e. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular Republic v. Heirs of Alejaga – Investigator A allegedly
course of business or duty conducted an investigation and provided a report which led to
issuing a patent. Republic sued for fraud, providing investigator B’s
Richmon v. Anchuelo – Defendant produced a witness which report wherein A supposedly admitted that he had not actually
testified that defendant told him that the plaintiff would cure him conducted an investigation and ocular inspection of the parcel of
for free. It was hearsay. land. Court ruled that it was not hearsay for being independently
relevant.
A witness may testify as to the state of mind of another person --
2. Statements of a person which show his physical condition,
the latter’s knowledge, belief, or good or bad faith -- and the
as illness and the like;
formers statements may then be regarded as independently
3. Statements of a person from which an inference may be
relevant without violating the hearsay rule
made as to the state of mind of another, that is, the
knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the
The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that
latter;
conversations communicated to a witness by a third person may
4. Statements which may identify the date, place and person
be admitted as proof that, regardless of their truth or falsity, they
in question; and
were actually made. Evidence as to the making of such statements
5. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness.
is not secondary but primary, for in itself it (a) constitutes a fact in
Here, the Angara Diary contains statements of the petitioner which
issue or (b) is circumstantially relevant to the existence of such
reflect his state of mind and are circumstantial evidence of his
fact.
intent to resign.
Estrada v. Desierto – This is about the use of Angara Diary as People v. Aguel – News clippings are hearsay and have no
evidence of Estrada’s state of mind. evidentiary value.
Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends, in Bedol v. COMELEC - Bedol came out on ‘Inquirer’ and GMA-7,
whole or in part, on the competency and credibility of some with a 45-caliber pistol strapped to his side, and in clear defiance
persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it. of the Commission saying that ‘those that are saying that there
was cheating in Maguindanao, file a case against me tomorrow, the
Reasons for not allowing hearsay: next day.
a. Absence of cross-examination
b. Absence of demeanor evidence True, SC has rejected newspaper articles as hearsay, when such
c. Absence of oath
articles are offered to prove their contents without any other
competent and credible evidence to corroborate them. However, in
Court considered AD as adoptive admission - a party’s reaction to Estrada v. Desierto, the Court held hearsay evidence may be
a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to admitted by the courts on grounds of "relevance, trustworthiness
treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or and necessity.
implied by the other person.
It was also an exception to the res inter alios actas rule for being Another exception to the hearsay rule is the doctrine of
an admission of an agent. Executive Secretary Angara was an alter independently relevant statements, where only the fact that such
ego of the petitioner. He was the Little President. statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof
is immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply
Moreover, hearsay does not cover independently relevant
statements. It has two classes: The clippings were introduced to prove that petitioner deliberately
a. those statements which are the very facts in issue
defied or challenged the authority of the COMELEC. It was not the
b. those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the mere content of the articles that was in issue, but Bedol’s conduct
facts in issue when he allowed himself to be interviewed in the manner and
circumstances, adverted to in the COMELEC Resolution, on a
Second class includes the following: pending controversy which was still brewing in the COMELEC.
1. Statement of a person showing his state of mind, that is,
his mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill will
and other emotions;
Ocampo v. Enriquez (Martial Law case) - Newspaper articles
-- not so much the rapid eventuation of death -- is at hand. This
amount to "hearsay evidence, twice removed" and are therefore
may be proven by:
not only inadmissible but without any probative value at all
whether objected to or not, unless offered for a purpose other than
a. the statement of the deceased himself or
proving the truth of the matter asserted. As it is, the news article
b. it may be inferred from the nature and extent of the
is admissible only as evidence that such publication exists with the
decedent’s wounds, or other relevant circumstances."
tenor of the news therein stated. The same rules apply to news
article published via the broadcast media or the internet
Here, Ernesto had nine stab wounds which caused his death within
communication.
the next 48 hours. At the time he uttered his statement accusing
Gary and Alberto of stabbing him, his body was already very
Buenaflor Car Service v. David, Jr. – B dismissed A for allegedly
rapidly deteriorating, as shown by his inability to speak and write
ordering C to insert “or cash” on B’s issued checks. A was
towards the end of the questioning.
implicated and dismissed due to C’s extrajudicial confession. NLRC
used res inter alios actas rule.
People v. Serenas - As an exception to the rule against hearsay
evidence, a dying declaration or ante mortem statement is
Even if it is assumed that the rule on res inter alios acta were to
evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence
apply in this illegal dismissal case, the treatment of the
since no person aware of his impending death would make a
extrajudicial confession as hearsay is bound by the exception on
careless and false accusation.
independently relevant statements.
Requisites:
"Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements,
a. The declaration must concern the cause and surrounding
regardless of their truth or falsity, the fact that such statements
circumstances of the declarant's death;
have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and
b. At the time the declaration was made, the declarant must
the statements are admissible as evidence
be under the consciousness of an impending death
c. The declarant is competent as a witness;
C’s extrajudicial confession is independently relevant to prove the d. The declaration must be offered in a criminal case for
participation of A in the instant controversy considering his vital homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is
role in procurement process. The fact that such statement was the victim.
made by C, who was the actual author of the alterations, should
have been given consideration by the NLRC as it is directly, if not U.S. v. Kearney – Cop was shot. Cop told A about who killed him
circumstantially, relevant to the issue at hand. after surgery. A’s testimony was admitted as a dying declaration.
Also, the defense was allowed to question B, the main witness to
Dying Declarations the shooting about his narcotic problem since defense has wide
latitude to impeach a witness. It is undeniable that it may be
People v. Tarbanero - While in the presence of the two doctors proper to develop the matter of drug addiction in an effort to
on duty, SPO2 Morales asked victim who stabbed him. SPO2 attack a witness's competency and capacity to observe, remember
Morales testified as to the identities of the murderers. and recall. On the issue whether this is material to credibility in
terms of veracity, the authorities are in disarray.
Dying declarations are admissible as an exception to the hearsay
rule. Dead Man’s Statute
It must be shown that a dying declaration was made under a
realization by the decedent that his demise or at least, its
imminence
Ziegler v. Moore – A sued B due to vehicular collision. B talked to
it filed upon claims against the estate as it was the administrator
his administrator before dying and provided an accident report.
that filed the case. Moreover, even if the statute applies, the
Admin was asked as to what B told him to which A objected on the
administrator is deemed to have waived it for lack of objection.
basis of the dead man’s statute.

The Dead Man’s Statute is a rule of law the purpose of which is to Parel v. Prudencio – A filed a case for recovery of possession and
prevent an interested party (surviving) from testifying on matters ownership against B. B says his dad was co-owner. A presented B’s
which the decedent could have contradicted of his own knowledge. father’s affidavit wherein he stated that A was sole owner.
An interested party means that the witness would either gain or
lose by direct legal operation of the judgment. The rule does not It was not considered as hearsay. Sec. 38 of Rule 130 provides the
apply therefore to disinterested third persons. Furthermore, the rule on declarations against interest. The theory under which
word “transaction” under the statute is broad enough to include declarations against interest are received in evidence
both contracts and torts. notwithstanding they are hearsay is that the necessity of the
occasion renders the reception of such evidence advisable and,
further that the reliability of such declaration asserts facts which
Sunga-Chan v. Chua – Requisites of Dead Man’s Statute: are against his own pecuniary or moral interest.
a. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to a case or
persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. People v. Bernal – This is a case of kidnapping. Prosecution’s
b. The action is against an executor or administrator or other theory is that A was kidnapped by B for having an affair with B’s
representative of a deceased person or a person of wife while Defense says A was a drug pusher and was arrested. A
unsound mind; was never found and his friend testified that A confided in him that
c. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand he had an affair with B’s wife. It was considered as an exception to
against the estate of such deceased person or against the hearsay rule.
person of unsound mind;
d. His testimony refers to any matter of fact which occurred Requisites:
before the death of such deceased person or before such a. That the declarant is dead or unable to testify;
person became of unsound mind. b. That it relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant;
c. That at the time he made said declaration the declarant
Important exception: The rules provide that when the executor or was aware that the same was contrary to his aforesaid
administrator or representatives of the estate sets up the interest; and
counterclaim, the plaintiff, may testify to occurrences before the d. That the declarant had no motive to falsify and believed
death of the deceased to defeat the counterclaim. such declaration to be true.

Razon v. IAC – Administrator filed a case to recover stocks A, having been missing since his abduction, cannot be called upon
wherein defendant testified. Testimony was allowed. Dead man’s to testify. His confession to his friend was a declaration against his
statute only applies when the case is against the own interest, since his affair with B’s wife was a crime, is
administrator/representative of the estate upon a claim against the admissible in evidence because no sane person will be presumed
estate of the deceased. to tell a falsehood to his own detriment.

Here, it is clear that the testimony of defendant does not fall under Declaration about Pedigree
the rule because it was not filed against the administrator, nor was
Tison v. CA – A and B seek to establish that they are C’s niece
a. That there is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any
and nephew to be considered as C’s heirs. Part of their evidence is
of the members of a family;
that C, in her lifetime, categorically stated that they are her niece
b. That the reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the
and nephew. It was considered as exception to hearsay rule.
person concerned existed previous to the controversy; and
c. That the witness testifying to the reputation or tradition
Declaration about Pedigree Requisites:
regarding the pedigree of the person must be a member of
a. The declarant is dead or is unable to testify; the family of said person.
b. That the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree
is the subject of inquiry;
All these preconditions are obtaining in the case at bar considering
c. That such relationship be shown by evidence other than that the date of birth of the rape victim is being put in issue; that
the declaration, and the declaration of the victim's grandfather relating to tradition
d. That the declaration was made ante litem motam, that is, (sending a child to school upon reaching the age of seven) existed
not only before the commencement of the suit involving long before the rape case was filed; and that the witness testifying
the subject matter of the declaration, but before any to the said tradition is the maternal grandfather of the rape victim.
controversy has arisen thereon.
People v. Pruna – Another case of rape of minor where the age is
GR: Where the party claiming seeks recovery against a relative in issue. SC provided guidelines for proving age:
common to both claimant and declarant, but not from the
declarant himself or the declarant’s estate, the relationship of the
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is
declarant to the common relative may not be proved by the
an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live
declaration itself. There must be some independent proof of this
birth of such party.
fact.
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar
Ex: The requirement that there be other proof than the
authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and
declarations of the declarant as to the relationship, does not apply
school records which show the date of birth of the victim
where it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and
would suffice to prove age.
not merely to establish a right through his declarations to the
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is
property of some other member of the family.
shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise
unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the
People v. Alegado – In proving the age of a minor in a case of victim’s mother or a member of the family either by affinity
rape, SC ruled that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters
the offended party herself and her maternal grandfather, Cornelio respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth
Villarosa, as to when the victim was born do not constitute hearsay of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of
evidence but fall under the exceptions to the hearsay rule as the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the
provided under sections 39 and 40 of Rule 130 of the Revised following circumstances:
Rules on Evidence (Declaration about Pedigree and Family
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age
Tradition or Reputation Regarding Pedigree).
and what is sought to be proved is that she is less
than 7 years old;
Pedigree includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age
death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred and what is sought to be proved is that she is less
and the names of the relatives. than 12 years old;
Requisites of Sec. 39, R130:
 c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age
Such rule is limited to objects which are commonly known as
and what is sought to be proved is that she is less
family possessions, or those articles which represent, in effect, a
than 18 years old.
family’s joint statement of its belief as to the pedigree of a person.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic These have been described as objects openly exhibited and well
document, or the testimony of the victims mother or known to the family, or those which, if preserved in a family, may
relatives concerning the victims age, the complainants be regarded as giving a family tradition. Other examples of these
testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and objects which are regarded as reflective of a family’s reputation or
clearly admitted by the accused. are inscriptions on tombstones, monuments or coffin plates.
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the
age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to The letters, which are private documents, are not constituting
object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not “family possessions.”
be taken against him.
The exhibits were also not considered as evidence of common
Here, the Court found that in view of the uncertainty of minor’s reputation under R130, Sec, 41. The weight of authority appears to
exact age, corroborative evidence such as her birth certificate, be in favor of the theory that it is the general repute, the common
baptismal certificate or any other authentic document should be reputation in the family, and not the common reputation in
introduced in evidence in order to qualify the rape as that of a community, that is a material element of evidence going to
minor below 7 yrs. old (penalty is death). However, conformably establish pedigree. Thus, matters of pedigree may be proved by
with no. 3(b) of the foregoing guidelines, the testimony of minor’s reputation in the family, and not by reputation in the neighborhood
mother that she was 3 years old at the time of the commission of or vicinity, except where the pedigree in question is marriage
the crime is sufficient for purposes of holding accused liable for which may be proved by common reputation in the community.
statutory rape, or rape of a girl below 12 years of age.
Res Gestae
Jison v. CA – A filed a complaint for judicial declaration of her
illegitimate status and for support against B. Aside from A’s birth Marturillas v. People – The dying declaration of offered in
certificate, baptismal certificate, and school records, A presented evidence where he said “Pre, Binaril ako ni Kapitan”), and the
various notes and letters written by B’s relatives allegedly attesting statement of his wife, Ernita, saying “Kapitan, bakit mo binaril ang
to A’s filiation. Such were considered hearsay because: asawa ko?”
a. There is no showing that the declarants-authors were dead
or unable to testify, and Requisites of Dying Declaration:
b. Neither was the relationship between the declarants and A a. Refer to the cause and circumstances surrounding the
shown by evidence other than the documents in question. declarant’s death.
b. Be made under the consciousness of an impending death;
R130, Sec. 40 which provides for Family Tradition/Reputation c. Be made freely and voluntarily without coercion or
Regarding Pedigree is divided into two: suggestions of improper influence;
a. Testimonial evidence, under which the documents in d. Be offered in a criminal case, in which the death of the
question may not be admitted as the authors thereof did declarant is the subject of inquiry; and
not take the witness stand; e. Have been made by a declarant competent to testify as a
b. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts, witness, had that person been called upon to testify.
engravings on rings, family portraits and the like may be
received as evidence of pedigree.
The fact that the victims statement constituted a dying declaration
To be admissible as part of res gestae, a statement must be
does not preclude it from being admitted as part of the res gestae,
spontaneous, made during a startling occurrence or immediately
if the elements of both are present.
prior or subsequent thereto, and must relate to the circumstance
of such occurrence.
Part of res gestae - Statements made by the participants or the
victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately before,
Here, the statement was spontaneous because the time gap from
during, or after its commission. These spontaneous reaction or
the sexual assault to the time the victim recounted her harrowing
utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any
experience was very short. Obviously, there was neither capability
opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. An
nor opportunity for the 4-year-old Elizabeth to fabricate her
important consideration is whether there intervened, between the
statement.
occurrence and the statement, any circumstance calculated to
divert the mind and thus restore the mental balance of the
The critical factor is the ability or chance to invent a story of rape.
declarant; and afford an opportunity for deliberation.
At her age, the victim could not have had the sophistication, let
alone the malice, to tell her mother that her uncle made her lie
Requisites to be deemed as part of res gestae:
down, took off her panties and inserted his penis inside her vagina.
a. The principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
b. The statements were made before the declarant had time
to contrive or devise; and
Schmidt v. Pittsburgh – A figured into an accident while driving.
c. The statements concerned the occurrence in question and
B testified as to A’s acts prior to the accident to show that A was
its immediately attending circumstances.
travelling in the course of employment. Such was not considered
as hearsay but constituted res gestae in their relation to one
DBP Pool v. Radio Mindanao - The rule in res gestae applies
element or issue of the cause of action, "was the employee in the
when the declarant himself did not testify and provided that the
course of his employment?"
testimony of the witness who heard the declarant complies with
the following requisites:
There is a distinct class of cases comprising statements which
a. that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling
themselves are facts constituting part of the transaction under
occurrence;
investigation and which are admissible in evidence under the rule
b. the statements were made before the declarant had the
of res gestae.
time to contrive or devise a falsehood;
c. that the statements must concern the occurrence in
The motive, character and object of an act are frequently indicated
question and its immediate attending circumstances.
by what was said by the person engaged in the act. Such
statements are in the nature of verbal acts and are admissible in
Here, it was not found that utterances introduced as evidence were
evidence with the remainder of the transaction, which they
made spontaneously by the bystanders and before they had the
illustrate.
time to contrive or devise a falsehood.
The test of admissibility is stated to be: "whether the act,
People v. Villarama - Villarama asserts that the testimonies of
declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or
the Elizabeth’s parents were hearsay since they did not witness the
connected with the principal fact or event which it characterizes as
actual rape and were only relating the rape as allegedly told to
to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether
them by Elizabeth.
it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture
testimony.”
People v. Ner - All that is required for the admissibility of a given
considerations of self-interest could not have manifested, and so
statement as part of res gestae, is that it be made under the
take the utterance as particularly trustworthy.
influence of a startling event witnessed by the person who made
the declaration before he had time to think and make up a story,
Entries in the Course of Business
in to concoct or contrive a falsehood, or to fabricate an account,
and without any undue influence in obtaining it, aside from
Security Bank v. Gan – A opened an account with SB. SB says
referring to the event in question or its immediate attending
that A had a special arrangement with B wherein A could transfer
circumstances.
money from his account to other accounts in SB covered by “debit
memos.” This resulted in an overdraft leading to A’s debt. A’s
Examples of res gestae:
defense is that the transactions were without his consent. SB
a. the statement of a child made within an hour of an
presented a ledger to show the transactions and the person who
alleged assault;
prepared it: C. The ledger was considered as hearsay.
b. the testimony of a police officer as to what a
victim told him not more than 30 minutes after the Requisites:
commission of an alleged crime; The admission in evidence of entries in corporate books required the
c. the statements of defendant's employees satisfaction of the following conditions:
made about 30 minutes after an accident; and a. the person who made the entry must be dead, or unable to
d. the declaration of a victim some 5 to 10 testify;
minutes after an incident. b. the entries were made at or near the time of the
transactions to which they refer;
U.S. v. Napier – A was accused of carnapping and kidnapping B. B
c. the entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in
was hospitalized and suffered brain damage. 1 week after B went
the entries;
home, her sibling showed a newspaper article showing A’s face. B’s
d. the entries were made in his professional capacity or in the
immediate reaction was one of great distress and horror and upset,
performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral
saying “he killed me” twice. B was not presented before the court.
or religious; and
However, the display of A’s photograph qualified as a sufficiently
e. the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of
“startling” event to render the statement made in response thereto
business or duty.
admissible.
The first was not present as C himself was presented as a witness.
In most cases, the “startling” events which prompt “spontaneous
The third was not present as C only recorded the transactions but
exclamations” are accidents, assaults, and the like. There is no
did not know its nature.
reason to restrict the exception to those situations.
The credit accommodations allegedly allowed by B are loans, to
The admissibility of spontaneous exclamations is based on the
prove which competent testimonial or documentary evidence must
experience that, under certain external circumstances of physical
be presented. In the face of A’s denial and the absence of any
shock, a stress of nervous excitement may be produced which stills
document reflecting it, the testimony of a party to the transaction,
the reflective faculties and removes their control, so that the
i.e., B, or of any witness to the same, would be necessary.
utterance which occurs is a spontaneous and sincere response to
the actual sensations and perceptions already produced by the
As a subordinate, C could not have done more than record what
external shock.
was reported to him by his superior the branch manager, and
unless he was allowed to be privy to the latter’s dealings with
Since the utterance is made under immediate and uncontrolled
the A, the
domination of the sense, and during the brief period when
information that he received and entered in the ledgers was
incapable of being confirmed by him.
Barcelon v. CIR – Main issue is whether A received an
assessment notice from BIR.
Nestle v. FY Sons – To prove that FY Sons has a debt of 900k,
Nestle introduced A, the person who prepared the Statement of
While a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in the
Account, who admitted that the Invoices corresponding to the
course of mail, this is merely a disputable presumption subject to
alleged overdue accounts are not signed. Her explanation was that
controversion and a direct denial thereof shifts the burden to the
there were DOs or Delivery Orders covering the transactions. Her
party favored by the presumption to prove that the mailed letter
testimony was considered as hearsay.
was indeed received by the addressee.
A had no personal knowledge of the facts on which the accounts
The facts to be proved to raise this presumption are:
were based since, admittedly, she was not involved in the delivery
a. that the letter was properly addressed with postage
of goods and was merely in charge of the records and documents
prepaid, and
of all accounts receivable as part of her duties as credit and
b. that it was mailed.
collection manager. She thus knew nothing of the truth or falsity of
the facts stated in the invoices and delivery orders, i.e., whether
Once these facts are proved, the presumption is that the letter was
such deliveries were in fact made in the amounts and on the dates
received by the addressee as soon as it could have been
stated, or whether they were actually received by respondent. She
transmitted to him in the ordinary course of the mail. But if one of
was not even the credit and collection manager during the period
the said facts fails to appear, the presumption does not lie.
the agreement was in effect. This can only mean that she merely
obtained these documents from another without any personal
BIR presented its BIR record book where the name of the
knowledge of their contents.
taxpayer, the kind of tax assessed, the registry receipt number
and the date of mailing were noted. The BIR records custodian, B,
The foregoing shows that A was incompetent to testify on whether
also testified that she made the entries therein. It was not
or not the invoices and delivery orders turned over to her correctly
considered as an entry by a public officer in the course of his duty.
reflected the details of the deliveries made. Thus, hearsay.
Requisites:
Entries by Public Officers
a. hat the entry was made by a public officer, or by another
person specially enjoined by law to do so;
Tarapen v. People – There were two contradicting medico-legal
b. that it was made by the public officer in the performance of
certificates. Court followed the government doctor’s finding.
his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a
duty specially enjoined by law; and
By actual practice, only government physicians, by virtue of their c. that the public officer or other person had sufficient
oaths as civil service officials, are competent to examine persons
knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have
and issue medical certificates which will be used by the been acquired by him personally or through official
government. As such, the medical certificate carries the information
presumption of regularity in the performance of his functions and Here, the entries made by B were not based on her personal
duties. knowledge as she did not attest to the fact that she personally
prepared and mailed the assessment notice. Nor was it stated in
Moreover, under Sec. 44, R130, entries in official records made in the STN how and from whom she obtained the pertinent
the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the information. Moreover, she did not attest to the fact that she
facts therein stated. As held by this Court, an unverified medical acquired the reports from persons under a legal duty to submit the
certificate not issued by a government physician is unreliable. same. Hence, Rule 130, Section 44 finds no application in the
present case.
Canque v. CA – A subcontracted B. B asked for payment for Statement of matters contained in a periodical, may be admitted
certain items delivered. B presented its Book of Collectible only "if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in
Accounts to prove delivery. that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them
therein."
The admission in evidence of entries in corporate books requires
the satisfaction of the following conditions: Here, the cited report is a mere newspaper account and not even a
commercial list. At most, it is but an analysis or opinion which
a. The person who made the entry must be dead, outside the carries no persuasive weight for purposes of this case as no
country or unable to testify; sufficient figures to support it were presented. Neither did anybody
b. The entries were made at or near the time of the testify to its accuracy. It cannot be said that businessmen
transactions to which they refer; generally rely on news items such as this in their occupation.
c. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in
the entries; Besides, no evidence was presented that the publication was
d. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in regularly prepared by a person in touch with the market and that
the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, it is generally regarded as trustworthy and reliable. Absent
moral or religious; and extrinsic proof of their accuracy, these reports are not admissible.
e. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of
business or duty. In the same manner, newspapers containing stock quotations are
not admissible in evidence when the source of the reports is
First and third were not present. The person who prepared the available. With more reason, mere analyses or projections of such
book was presented before the Court. Hence, no necessity. The reports cannot be admitted. In particular, the source of the report
person also was not in the position to know the facts stated in the in this case can be easily made available considering that the same
entries as the person admitted to having no personal knowledge. is necessary for compliance with certain governmental
requirements.
Whether or not the bills given to Aday correctly reflected the
deliveries made in the amounts and on the dates indicated was a Estrada v. Desierto – [Already mentioned above]
fact that could be established by the project engineer alone who
was not presented during trial.
OPINION RULE
When the witness had no personal knowledge of the facts entered
by him, and the person who gave him the information is Domingo v. Domingo - Under the RoC, genuineness of a
individually known and may testify as to the facts stated in the handwriting may be proved by the following:
entry which is not part of a system of entries where scores of a. A witness who actually saw the person writing the
employees have intervened, such entry is not admissible without instrument;
the testimony of the informer. b. A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give
his opinion thereon, such opinion being an exception to the
Commercial Lists opinion rule;
c. comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and
Manila Electric v. Quisumbing – Union presented a report to admitted genuine specimen thereof; an
substantiate their position on a wage issue, stating that it was a d. Expert evidence.
commercial list.
Tijing v. CA – A claims that B is her son but C claims that B is a
documents that are available to appellate magistrates and subject
different person and is her son. Court found that B is A’s son.
to their scrutiny, reliance on trial courts finds no application.
Court found that TC observed several times that when the B and A
It is hornbook doctrine that the opinions of handwriting experts,
were both in court, the two had strong similarities in their faces,
even those from the NBI and the PC, are not binding upon courts.
eyes, eyebrows and head shapes. Resemblance between a minor
This principle holds true especially when the question involved is
and his alleged parent is competent and material evidence to
mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be
establish parentage. Needless to stress, the trial court's conclusion
determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the questioned
should be given high respect, it having had the opportunity to
signatures with those of the currently existing ones.
observe the physical appearances of the minor and petitioner
concerned.
Resort to these experts is not mandatory or indispensable to the
examination or the comparison of handwriting. A finding of forgery
A final note. Parentage will still be resolved using conventional
does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting
methods unless we adopt the modern and scientific ways available.
experts, because the judge must conduct an independent
Fortunately, we have now the facility and expertise in using DNA
examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a
test for identification and parentage testing. Of course, being a
reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.
novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still
open to challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate case comes,
Moreover, Sec. 22 of R132 of the Rules of Court explicitly
courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA
authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the
evidence. For it was said, that courts should apply the results of
disputed handwriting "with writings admitted or treated as genuine
science when competently obtained in aid of situations presented,
by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
since to reject said result is to deny progress.
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
ISAA v. Greenpeace (BT Talong case) - In a "hot tub" hearing,
The best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the
the judge can hear all the experts discussing the same issue at the
instrument itself showing the alleged forgeries. The fact of forgery
same time to explain each of their points in a discussion with a
can be established by comparing the allegedly false signature with
professional colleague. The objective is to achieve greater
the authentic or genuine one.
efficiency and expedition, by reduced emphasis on cross-
examination and increased emphasis on professional dialogue, and
Factors to consider (I do not think this is important):
swifter identification of the critical areas of disagreement between
a. Dissimilarities as regards spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of
the experts.
the pen, loops in the strokes, signs of stops, shades, etc.
that may be found between the questioned signature and
Here, the hot tub hearing has not yielded any consensus on the
the genuine one are not decisive on the question of the
points of contention between the expert witnesses, i.e., the safety
former’s authenticity.
of BT Talong to humans and the environment.
b. The position of the writer
c. the condition of the surface on which the paper where
Jimenez v. Council of Ecumenical Missions - The reliance of
the questioned signature is written is placed
appellate tribunals on the factual findings of the trial court is based
d. his state of mind, feelings and nerves, and
on the postulate that the latter had firsthand opportunity to hear
e. the kind of pen and/or paper used, play an important role
the witnesses and to observe their conduct and demeanor during
on the general appearance of the signature.
the proceedings. However, when such findings are not anchored on
their credibility and their testimonies, but on the assessment of
Unless, therefore, there is, in a given case, absolute absence, or
Collective Facts Rule – Impressions which are based upon a great
manifest dearth, of direct or circumstantial competent evidence on
variety of circumstances and a combination of appearances, which
the character of a questioned handwriting, much weight should not
because either of the witness' infirmity or the infirmity of our
be given to characteristic similarities, or dissimilarities, between
language cannot be adequately or better expressed, may be
that questioned handwriting and an authentic one."
testified to by those who have personally observed the facts.
People v. Duranan – In a rape case, the mother testified on the
(Found on internet: a witness's opinion that A acted drunk might
mental condition of her daughter-victim.
be more helpful than describing all the minute details that
demonstrated intoxication, and is probably the type of inference
The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given may be
that a layperson may reasonably draw.)
received in evidence regarding:
a. the identity of a person about whom he has adequate
Hernandez v. Juan-Santos – In a guardianship case, the
knowledge;
attending physicians of A they unanimously opined in view of A’s
b. a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
intelligence level (which was below average) and fragile mental
c. the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
state, she would not be able to care for herself and self-administer
acquainted.
her medications. B objected stating that the physicians were not
experts in psychiatry.
It is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to
the sanity or mental condition of a person, provided the witness
SC held that an ordinary witness may give his opinion on the
has had sufficient opportunity to observe the speech, manner,
mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
habits, and conduct of the person in question. Here, the victim’s
Here, A’s attending physicians spoke and interacted with her. Such
mental retardation was proven by the mother’s testimony.
occasions allowed them to thoroughly observe her behavior and
conclude that her intelligence level was below average and her
Virgina Ry & Power Co. v. Burr – Burr was killed by being
mental stage below normal. Their opinions were admissible in
crushed by an inter-urban car against a passenger station wall.
evidence.
Andrews testified saying that “As I said, I just stepped on the car,
and the car had started to move off, probably moved twenty or
Furthermore, where the sanity of a person is at issue, expert
twenty-five feet, when I heard a rush at the door like someone
opinion is not necessary. The observations of the trial judge
would rush at the door and slap their hand in the center of it.
coupled with evidence establishing the person's state of mental
Naturally I stepped over to look to see what the trouble was, and I
sanity will suffice. Here, the trial judge was given ample
saw this man fall back, and it seems as though then he would have
opportunity to observe A personally when she testified.
had time to run out—" Defense objected for that being an opinion.
Andrew’s impression was admitted.
People v. Adoviso – In a case of murder against A, the defense
offered the testimony of a Polygraph Examiner II of the NBI, who
The exception to the general rule that witnesses cannot give
conducted a polygraph test on A. In the Polygraph Report, it was
opinions, is not confined to the evidence of experts testifying on
opined that A’s 'polygrams revealed that there were no specific
subjects requiring special knowledge, skill or learning, but includes
reactions indicative of deception to pertinent questions relevant to
the evidence of common observers, testifying to the results of their
the investigation of the crimes.
observation made at the time in regard to common appearances of
facts, and a condition of things which cannot be reproduced and
Polygraph - an electromechanical instrument that simultaneously
made palpable to a jury.
measures and records certain physiological changes in the human
body that are believed to be involuntarily caused by an examinee's
conscious attempt to deceive the questioner.
 objected to the test and the opinion testimony because the test
The theory behind a polygraph or lie detector test is that a person was too new and unreliable and has not yet been generally
who lies deliberately will have rising blood pressure and a accepted by scientists in its particular field.
subconscious block in breathing, which will be recorded on the
graph. However, American courts almost uniformly reject the On questions of science, skill, or trade, or others of like kind,
results of polygraphs tests when offered in evidence for the persons of skill, sometimes called experts, may not only testify to
purposes of establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a facts, but are permitted to give their opinions in evidence.
crime, whether the accused or the prosecution seeks its
introduction, for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained Whether a witness is shown to be qualified or not as an expert is a
scientific acceptance as a reliable and ascertaining truth or preliminary question to be determined in the first place by the
deception. The rule is no different in this jurisdiction. court; and the rule is, that if the court admits the testimony, then
it is for the jury to decide whether any, and if any what, weight is
Thus, in People v. Daniel, stating that much faith and credit should to be given to the testimony. Cases arise where it is very much a
not be vested upon a lie detector test as it is not conclusive. A, in matter of discretion with the court whether to receive or exclude
this case, has not advanced any reason why this rule should not the evidence; but the appellate court will not reverse in such a
apply to him. case, unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous.

Oregon v. Garver – A was charged for shooting and killing in the Neither newness nor lack of absolute certainty in a test suffices to
course of an attempt to commit the crime of assault and robbery render it inadmissible in court. Every useful new development
being armed with dangerous weapon. A’s defense is insanity. A must have its first day in court. And court records are full of the
presented his mother and a psychiatrist as witnesses to show his conflicting opinions of doctors, engineers and accountants, to
mental abnormality. The State presented expert witnesses. The name just a few of the legions of expert witnesses.
Court struck the phrases used by the mother, "such a terrible
shape" and "physically ill", on the theory that they were the Here, the record affords support for the proposition that neutron
opinions or conclusions of the witness. activation analysis has gained "general acceptance in the particular
field in which it belongs. While the Court believes that the neutron
Court ruled that the general rule, of course, is that a lay witness activation analysis evidence meets the test of admissibility in this
may testify only to facts and not to opinions or conclusions. But lay case, we also note that like any other scientific evidence, this
witnesses are frequently permitted to use so-called "short hand" method can be subjected to abuse.
descriptions, in reality opinions, in presenting to the court their
impression of the general physical condition of a person. People v. Carpo - A lie detector test is based on the theory that
an individual will undergo physiological changes, capable of being
This court has held it proper in a personal injury case to permit monitored by sensors attached to his body, when he is not telling
laymen, who were intimately acquainted with the plaintiff prior to the truth. The Court does not put credit and faith on the result of a
her injury and observed her condition thereafter, to testify that her lie detector test inasmuch as it has not been accepted by the
health and general physical condition had materially changed for scientific community as an accurate means of ascertaining truth or
the worse. deception.

U.S. v. Stifel – This case involves a charge of murder by mailing Character Evidence
bombs. A neutron activation analysis was used to determine that
the cardboard used in the bombings were similar to those used in People v. Lee – In a case of murder, one of A’s defense was that
A’s workplace. The person who conducted the test also testified. A the victim had a bad reputation in their community. A alleges that
the victim's drug habit led him to commit other crimes and he may
the issue of his good character, the prosecution may, in rebuttal,
have been shot by any of the persons from whom he had stolen.
offer evidence of the defendant's bad character. Otherwise, a
As proof of the victim’s bad character, A presented a letter to
defendant, secure from refutation, would have a license to
Mayor Malonzo seeking his assistance for the victim's rehabilitation
unscrupulously impose a false character upon the tribunal.
from drugs.
Both sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of Section 51 of Rule 130 refer to
Character evidence is governed by Section 51, R130, viz:
character evidence of the accused. And this evidence must be
"pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged,"
"Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible;
meaning, that the character evidence must be relevant and
exceptions:
germane to the kind of the act charged, e.g., on a charge of rape,
a. In Criminal Cases:
character for chastity; on a charge of assault, character for
1. The accused may prove his good moral character
peacefulness or violence; on a charge for embezzlement, character
which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
for honesty and integrity.
offense charged.
2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his
Sub-paragraph (3) of Section 51 of the said Rule refers to the
bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral
character of the offended party. Character evidence, whether good
trait involved in the offense charged.
or bad, of the offended party may be proved "if it tends to
3. The good or bad moral character of the offended party
establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability
may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable
of the offense charged." Such evidence is most commonly offered
degree the probability or improbability of the offense
to support a claim of self-defense in an assault or homicide case or
charged.”
a claim of consent in a rape case.
Character - the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind
In homicide cases, a pertinent character trait of the victim is
and morals, distinguishing him from others. It is the opinion
admissible in two situations: (1) as evidence of the deceased's
generally entertained of a person derived from the common report
aggression; and (2) as evidence of the state of mind of the
of the people who are acquainted with him; his reputation.
accused. The pugnacious, quarrelsome or trouble-seeking
character of the deceased or his calmness, gentleness and peaceful
"Good moral character" includes all the elements essential to make
nature, as the case may be, is relevant in determining whether the
up such a character; among these are common honesty and
deceased or the accused was the aggressor. When the evidence
veracity, especially in all professional intercourse; a character that
tends to prove self-defense, the known violent character of the
measures up as good among people of the community in which the
deceased is also admissible to show that it produced a reasonable
person lives, or that is up to the standard of the average citizen;
belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a
that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright
justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was
conduct.
necessary.
The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded
Here, proof of the bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to
as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so that evidence
determine the probability or improbability of his killing. A has not
relating thereto is not admissible.
alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was
made in self-defense. There is no connection between the
The offering of character evidence on his behalf is a privilege of the
deceased's drug addiction and thievery with his violent death in the
defendant, and the prosecution cannot comment on the failure of
hands of A. In light of the positive eyewitness testimony, the claim
the defendant to produce such evidence. Once the defendant
that because of the victim's bad character he could have been
raises
killed
by any one of those from whom he had stolen, is pure and simple
a godly man, a righteous person, a responsible family man and a
speculation.
good Christian who preaches the word of God.
CSC v. Belagan – A filed an administrative case against B for
The fact that accused-appellant is endowed with such "sterling"
sexual harassment. B presented 22 Criminal Cases and 23
qualities hardly justifies the conclusion that he is innocent of the
Barangay Complaints against A from 1980-1986. The charges
crime charged. Similarly, his having attained the position of
involved grave oral defamation, grave threats, unjust vexation,
"Ministerial Servant" in his faith is no guarantee against any sexual
physical injuries, and malicious mischief.
perversion and plunderous proclivity on his part. Indeed, religiosity
is not always an emblem of good conduct, and it is not the
First, R130, Sec. 51(3) only applies to criminal cases, not to
unreligious alone who succumbs to the impulse to rob and rape. An
administrative offenses. And even assuming that this technical rule
accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his
of evidence can be applied here, it is still untenable.
previous good moral character and exemplary conduct.

Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may
(Note: there was positive identification by victim in this case)
be proved under this provision. Only those which would establish
the probability or improbability of the offense charged. This means
that the character evidence must be limited to the traits and
characteristics involved in the type of offense charged. Thus, on a
charge of rape - character for chastity, on a charge of assault -
character for peaceableness or violence, and on a charge of Examination of Child Witnesses
embezzlement - character for honesty

In this case of sexual harassment, B did not offer evidence that People v. Cañete – In a case of rape, defense assigns the error
has a bearing on A's chastity. The charges for grave oral that the judge was biased as took the cudgels for the prosecution
defamation, grave threats, unjust vexation, physical injuries, and propounded questions on the child, even asking her leading
malicious mischief, etc. filed against her are inadmissible under the questions.
above provision because they do not establish the probability or
improbability of the offense charged. The TC was not precluded from asking questions to avoid further
wrangling between the public prosecutor and the accused’s counsel
Also, when the credibility of a witness is sought to be impeached which may frightened or unnerved the victim, a minor and who
by proof of his reputation, it is necessary that the reputation was unused to judicial proceedings.
shown should be that which existed before the occurrence of the
circumstances out of which the litigation arose, or at the time of As it turned out, the child cried profusely as she testified impelling
the trial and prior thereto, but not at a period remote from the the trial court to order a continuance. Even the counsel of the
commencement of the suit. This is because a person of derogatory accused agreed to a continuance.
character or reputation can still change or reform himself.
Parenthetically, under Sections 19 to 21 of the Rule on
People v. Diopita – In a case of rape, accused’s defense is that Examination of a Child Witness which took effect on December 15,
could not have committed the crime because he was a person of 2000, child witnesses may testify in a narrative form and leading
Good Moral Character and even held the position of Ministerial questions may be allowed by the trial court in all stages of the
Servant" in the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that he examination if the same will further the interest of justice.
is
Objections to questions should be couched in a manner so as not to
mislead, confuse, frighten and intimidate the child:
In the latest revision of the classification system, ‘enlarged
Sec. 19. Mode of questioning. — The court shall exercise control
hymenal opening’ is also removed as a criterion that should be
over the questioning of children so as to:
1. facilitate the ascertainment of the truth considered suspicious for abuse. Hence, insertion of a finger or any
2. ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to foreign matter inside the hymenal opening under the pretext of
the developmental level of the child, determining abuse is unnecessary and inappropriate.
3. protect children from harassment or undue
embarrassment, and In prepubertal girls without active bleeding, all that is needed is an
4. void waste of time. external examination with a good light source and magnification.
Be that as it may, the physical findings alone will not be conclusive
Obedencio v. Judge Murillo – A filed a case against Judge M for of child sexual abuse, for a child who gives a clear, consistent,
unjustly dismissing a rape case involving A’s child, a minor. M detailed, spontaneous description of being sexually molested may
allegedly dismissed the case after A’s child’s maternal still have normal genital examination. Despite the physical or
grandparents assisted the child in executing an affidavit of laboratory findings, however, a child’s clear and convincing
desistance. description of the abuse has a high rate of probability.

SC held that M was wrong in dismissing the case. A minor cannot Section 22 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
fully comprehend for herself the impact and legal consequence of categorically states: Section 22. Corroboration. - Corroboration
the affidavit of desistance. The affidavit should have been executed shall not be required of a testimony of a child. His testimony, if
with the concurrence of her parents. credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact,
conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard proof required in
At the very least, he should’ve appointed a guardian ad litem for criminal and non-criminal cases.
the child to protect her welfare and interest, instead of hastily
dismissing the rape case. Burden of Proof

The Rule on Examination of a Child Witness provides that in the Manongsong v. Estimo - He who alleges the affirmative of the
absence or incapacity of the parents to be the guardian, the court issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case,
may appoint a guardian ad litem to promote the best interests of the burden of proof never parts. However, in the course of trial in
the child. a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his
favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to
People v. Baring – Case of rape committed against a minor. The controvert plaintiff's prima facie case, otherwise, a verdict must be
court noted that in the physical examination of the child, the finger returned in favor of plaintiff. Moreover, in civil cases, the party
of the examiner was inserted insider her vagina to ascertain abuse. having the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of
evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the strength of
It bears to stress that this particular manner of establishing his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendants.
evidence – by determining the diameter/hymenal opening in rape
cases – was a common practice in the past. In light however of The concept of preponderance of evidence refers to evidence which
radical medical developments and findings, specifically as to the is of greater weight, or more convincing, that which is offered in
determination of the existence of child sexual abuse, this Court opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth
deems it necessary to firmly adopt a more "child sensitive"
approach in dealing with this specie or genre of crime.
Datalift Movers v. Belgravia Realty – A leased property to B
prima facie evidence of guilt, the burden of proof of the existence
who sublet it to C who sublet it to D. C increased rent and D
of the prima facie evidence is still the burden of the plaintiff.
stopped paying. A/B filed a case of ejectment against D. D avers
that C has no cause of action because C is not the owner or lessee
of the property. [Same doctrine as Manongsong – skippable] He who alleges the
affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the
plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. However,
SC held that The Rules shields C, as lessor, from being questioned
in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a
by D as lessees, regarding its title or better right of possession as
prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence
lessor because having admitted the existence of a lessor-lessee
shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case,
relationship, D is barred from assailing Belgravia’s title of better
otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.
right of possession as their lessor.
Moreover, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must
produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with plaintiff having
Sec. 2, R131 provides for instances of conclusive presumptions. to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the
One of them, that the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of weakness of the defendant's. The concept of "preponderance of
his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of evidence" refers to evidence which is of greater weight or more
landlord and tenant between them. convincing, that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it
means probability of truth.
Conclusive presumptions - “inferences which the law makes so
peremptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by any Here, the electric meters were mounted in notable places within
contrary proof however strong.” the premises owned by B. More than that, the building itself was
situated along a busy street in Davao City. This being the case, it
As long as the lessor-lessee relationship exists in this case, D, as becomes highly inconceivable that no one witnessed the alleged
lessee, cannot by any proof, however strong, overturn the tampering of the subject electric meters considering the
conclusive presumption that C has valid title to or better right of surroundings where they were set up. There is no direct evidence
possession to the subject leased premises than they have. to show that B caused the meter to be tampered, claiming that in
cases such as this, it is well-nigh impossible to secure such kind of
Davao Light & Power Co. v. Opeña & Ramos – A billed B for a evidence because it is a clandestine operation.
high electricity consumption even if A already checked that B’s
meter was defective. A alleges that B benefited from a low register Bautista v. Sarmiento – Case of estafa was filed and demurrer
of its consumption due to the defective meter and must pay a was denied since a prima facie case was found to have been
higher amount based on A’s own computation. A further alleges established by prosecution.
that the meter was tampered with, providing testimonies of its
engineers, but failing to identify the perpetrator, even if an Prima facie case - that amount of evidence which would be
unknown source allegedly tipped them of such tampering. Lastly, A sufficient to counter-balance the general presumption of
argues that the broken, deformed, and missing seals are prima innocence, and warrant a conviction, if not encountered and
facie evidence of meter tampering and, when taken together with controlled by evidence tending to contradict it, and render it
the significant drop in the registered electric consumption of B, improbable, or to prove other facts inconsistent with it, and the
establishes that the latter clearly benefited from the inaccuracy of establishment of a prima facie case does not take away the
electric meters. presumption of innocence which may in the opinion of the jury be
such as to rebut and control it.
While no constitutional provision is violated by a statute providing
that proof by the state of some material fact or facts shall In a criminal case, unless the guilt of the accused is established by
constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, he is entitled to an acquittal. But
when the trial court denies a demurrer to evidence on the ground
b. the evidence suppressed or withheld is merely
that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against
corroborative or cumulative,
them, they assume a definite burden. It becomes incumbent upon
c. the evidence is at the disposal of both parties and
petitioners to adduce evidence to meet and nullify, if not
d. the suppression is an exercise of a privilege
overthrow, the prima facie case against them. This is due to the
shift in the burden of evidence, and not of the burden of proof as
Manila Bay Corp v. CA – This is an MR of a case where the SC
petitioners would seem to believe.
awarded huge damages against MBC on the basis of R’s testimony
about an offer of 400K monthly rental offer for the property by
When a prima facie case is established by the prosecution in a other people. MBC claims that R will be unjustly enriched on the
criminal case, the burden of proof does not shift to the defense. It basis of speculation.
remains throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is
imposed-the prosecution. It is the burden of evidence which shifts SC said that MBC never provided controverting evidence. It is a
from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in well- settled rule that when the evidence tends to prove a material
the course of the trial. This burden of going forward with the fact which imposes a liability on a party, and he has it in his power
evidence is met by evidence which balances that introduced by the to produce evidence which from its very nature must overthrow
prosecution. Then the burden shifts back. the case made against him if it is not founded on fact, and he
refuses to produce such evidence, the presumption arises that the
A prima facie case need not be countered by a preponderance of evidence, if produced, would operate to his prejudice, and support
evidence nor by evidence of greater weight. Defendant's evidence the case of his adversary.
which equalizes the weight of plaintiff's evidence or puts the case
in equipoise is sufficient. As a result, plaintiff will have to go As weak evidence is often strengthened by failure of an opposing
forward with the proof. Should it happen that at the trial the party to contradict by evidence within his power, so the trier of
weight of evidence is equally balanced or at equilibrium and facts may infer that testimony in chief is worth its full-face value
presumptions operate against plaintiff who has the burden of when the other party is content to let it stand without cross-
proof, he cannot prevail. examination or contradiction by other evidence.

People v. Navaja – In a case of drug-pushing, A was convicted TLDR: Even if a testimony is improbable or absurd, if you do not
on the basis of one witness who conducted a buy-bust against A. question it or contradict it, the Court will accept it on it’s face
value.
Court held that there is no rule of evidence which requires the
People v. Sendaydiego – This is a case of malversation through
presentation of a specific or minimum number of witnesses to
falsification. The rule is that if a person had in his possession a
sustain a conviction for any of the offenses described in the
falsified document and he made use of it (uttered it), took
Dangerous Drugs Act. It is the prosecuting fiscal's prerogative to
advantage of it and profited thereby, the presumption is that he is
determine who or how many witnesses are to be presented in
the material author of the falsification.
order to establish the quantum of proof necessary for conviction.
This is especially true if the use or uttering of the forged
The non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does not
documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that
constitute suppression of evidence and would not be fatal to the
the user or possessor may be proven to have the capacity of
prosecution's case. The rule is settled that the adverse
committing the forgery, or to have close connection with the
presumption from a suppression of evidence is not applicable
forgers, and, therefore, had complicity in the forgery.
when:
a. the suppression is not willful,
In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in
for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury
possession of a forged document and who used or uttered it is
itself provides the proof of negligence.
presumed to be the forger.
DMCI v. CA - As a rule of evidence, the doctrine of res ipsa
Where common knowledge and experience teach that a resulting
loquitur is peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes that
injury would not have occurred to the patient if due care had been
prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and
exercised, an inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to
furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. One of the
an application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without medical
theoretical bases for the doctrine is its necessity, i.e. that
evidence, which is ordinarily required to show not only what
necessary evidence is absent or unavailable.
occurred but how and why it occurred.
The res ipsa loquitur doctrine is based in part upon the theory that
When the doctrine is appropriate, all that the patient must do is
the defendant in charge of the instrumentality which causes the
prove a nexus between the particular act or omission complained
injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best
of and the injury sustained while under the custody and
opportunity of ascertaining it and that the plaintiff has no such
management of the defendant without need to produce expert
knowledge, and therefore is compelled to allege negligence in
medical testimony to establish the standard of care.
general terms and to rely upon the proof of the happening of the
accident in order to establish negligence. The inference which the
Estate of Ong v. Diaz – A (wife) married B and C was born
doctrine permits is grounded upon the fact that the chief evidence
during their marriage. B left and A and C. A filed for support
of the true cause, whether culpable or innocent, is practically
against B but B says C is not his. RTC ruled that presumption of
accessible to the defendant but inaccessible to the injured person.
legitimacy applies since C was born during marriage. Pending
appeal, B died and CA remanded the case to RTC for DNA
It has been said that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur furnishes a
evidence. SC held that requiring DNA testing was proper.
bridge by which a plaintiff, without knowledge of the cause,
reaches over to defendant who knows or should know the cause,
The burden of proving paternity is on the person who alleges that
for any explanation of care exercised by the defendant in respect
the putative father is the biological father of the child. There are
of the matter of which the plaintiff complains.
four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action
which parties have to face:
Requisites:
a. prima facie case,
a. the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur
b. affirmative defenses
unless someone is negligent;
c. presumption of legitimacy, and
b. the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was
d. physical resemblance between the putative father and child.
under the exclusive control of the person charged with
negligence; and
A child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is
c. the injury suffered must not have been due to any
presumed legitimate. The presumption of legitimacy of the child,
voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person
however, is not conclusive and consequently, may be overthrown
injured.
by evidence to the contrary. There had been divergent and
incongruent statements and assertions bandied about by the
Ramos v. CA (the case about robust woman who went into coma)
parties to the present petition. But with the advancement in the
- Although generally, expert medical testimony is relied upon in
field of genetics, and the availability of new technology, it can now
malpractice suits to prove that a physician has done a negligent
be determined with reasonable certainty whether Rogelio is the
act or that he has deviated from the standard medical procedure,
biological father of the minor, through DNA testing.
when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the
need
Also, re: DNA, "biological sample" means any organic material
regularly performed by the police officers. Any taint of irregularity
originating from a person’s body, even if found in inanimate
affects the whole performance and should make the presumption
objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood,
unavailable.
saliva, and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
Thus, even if B already died, any of the biological samples as cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor
enumerated above as may be available, may be used for DNA constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. It should be noted that
testing. In this case, A has not shown the impossibility of obtaining the presumption is precisely just that – a presumption. Once
an appropriate biological sample that can be utilized for the challenged by evidence, as in this case, it cannot be regarded as
conduct of DNA testing. binding truth.

Del Carmen v. Bacoy (torts case about registered owner and While accused’s defense was not strong since it only constituted of
jeepney) – In a case of Reckless Imprudence leading to Homicide, mere denial and since the accused failed to present impartial
Res Ipsa was applied. Res ipsa loqitur is merely evidentiary, a witnesses who were not interested in the case, these weaknesses
mode of proof, or a mere procedural convenience, since it do not add any strength to the prosecution’s cause. Thus, however
furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the burden of weak the defense evidence might be, the prosecution’s whole case
producing a specific proof of negligence. It recognizes that parties still falls. As the well–entrenched dictum goes, the evidence for the
may establish prima facie negligence without direct proof, thus, it prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be
allows the principle to substitute for specific proof of negligence. allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.

Requisites: Vda. De Rosales v. Dime – A allegedly sold his land to B via a

a. The accident is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur pacto de retro sale evidenced by a public document adduced by B.
unless someone is negligent; A alleges that B’s document was falsified since the fingerprint
b. The cause of the injury is under the exclusive control of appearing therein was not hers and the signature of the Notary
the person in charge; and Public was not his.
c. The injury suffered must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person Generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight
injured. conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents
acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the
People v. Caranto – In a drug-pushing case, the chain of custody presumption of regularity.
was not observed by the police and the prosecution did not justify
the non-observance of the prescribed procedures. In other words, absent any clear and convincing proof to the
contrary, a notarized document enjoys the presumption of
SC held that the lower court erred in giving weight to the regularity and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents.
presumption of regularity in the performance that a police officer Irregularities in the notarization of the document may be
enjoys in the absence of any taint of irregularity and of ill motive established by oral evidence of persons present in said proceeding.
that would induce him to falsify his testimony.
Here, A bound herself to the NBI’s findings that the thumbmark
The totality of all the aforementioned procedural lapses effectively was hers. Further, while A submitted the specimen signature of the
produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus notary public, the same was never presented during the trial nor
delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame–up. These was authenticated. Hence, A failed to overcome the presumption of
lapses negate the presumption that official duties have been regularity of the notarized document.
 human affairs ordinarily take." Presumptions embody values and
(A failed to allege in her pleading that her true intention was to revealed behavioral expectations under a given set of
mortgage, not to sell her property.) circumstances.

Teng v. SEC - A certificate of stock is a written instrument signed Presumptions may be conclusive or disputable.
by the proper officer of a corporation stating or acknowledging that
the person named in the document is the owner of a designated Conclusive - presumptions that may not be overturned by
number of shares of its stock. It is prima facie evidence that the evidence, however strong the evidence is. Two kinds:
holder is a shareholder of a corporation. A certificate, however, is a. Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or
merely a tangible evidence of ownership of shares of stock. It is omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to
not a stock in the corporation and merely expresses the contract believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief,
between the corporation and the stockholder. he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration,
act or omission, be permitted to falsify it;
The shares of stock evidenced by said certificates, meanwhile, are b. The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord
regarded as property and the owner of such shares may, as a at the time of the commencement of the relation of
general rule, dispose of them as he sees fit, unless the corporation landlord and tenant between them.
has been dissolved, or unless the right to do so is properly
restricted, or the owner's privilege of disposing of his shares has Disputable - presumptions that may be overcome by contrary
been hampered by his own action. evidence

University of Mindanao v. BSP – The Chairman of UM procured The application of disputable presumptions on a given
loans from BSP for his own banks. The Finance VP of UM executed circumstance must be based on the existence of certain facts on
mortgage contracts covering UM’s properties. When BSP tried to which they are meant to operate. Presumptions are not
foreclose, UM alleged that they never received the proceeds, that allegations, nor do they supply their absence but are conclusions.
the Finance VP was not authorized to execute the mortgage They do not apply when there are no facts or allegations to
contracts, and that as an education institution, UM cannot support them.
mortgage its properties to secure another person’s debts. In this case, the presumption that the execution of mortgage
contracts was within petitioner's corporate powers does not apply.
This court has, in effect, created a presumption that corporate acts Securing third-party loans is not connected to UM's purposes as an
are valid if, on their face, the acts were within the corporation's educational institution.
powers or purposes. This presumption was explained where this
court ruled that contracts entered into by corporations in the Poe-Llanzamares v. COMELEC - Presumption regarding
exercise of their incidental powers are not ultra vires. paternity is neither unknown nor unacceptable in Philippine Law.
There is more than sufficient evidence that Poe has Filipino parents
However, this should not be interpreted to mean that such and is therefore a natural-born Filipino. Hence, the burden of proof
presumption applies to all cases, even when the act in question is was on private respondents to show that Poe is not a Filipino
on its face beyond the corporation's power to do or when the citizen.
evidence contradicts the presumption.
There is a disputable presumption that things have happened
Presumptions - "inferences as to the existence of a fact not according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits
actually known, arising from its usual connection with another of life. All of the foregoing evidence, that a person with typical
which is known, or a conjecture based on past experience as to Filipino features is abandoned in Catholic Church in a municipality
what course where the population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly Filipinos
such that there would be more than a 99% chance that a child
born
in the province would be a Filipino, would indicate more than
a. That private transactions have been fair and regular;
ample probability if not statistical certainty, that petitioner's
b. That the ordinary course of business has been followed; and
parents are Filipinos.
c. That there was sufficient consideration for a contract.
Adopting the legal principles from the 1930 Hague Convention and
The effect of a legal presumption upon a burden of proof is to
the 1961 Convention on Statelessness is rational and reasonable
create the necessity of presenting evidence to meet the legal
and consistent with the jus sanguinis regime in our Constitution.
presumption or the prima facie case created thereby, and which, if
The presumption of natural-born citizenship of foundlings stems
no proof to the contrary is presented and offered, will prevail.
from the presumption that their parents are nationals of the
Philippines. As the empirical data provided by the PSA show, that
The burden of proof remains where it is, but by the presumption,
presumption is at more than 99% and is a virtual certainty.
the one who has that burden is relieved for the time being from
introducing evidence in support of the averment, because the
Olaño v. Lim Eng Co – A alleges that it has copyrighted a certain
presumption stands in the place of evidence unless rebutted."
design and wants to sue B for copyright infringement. A lost.
By A’s affixing of his signature on the deed of absolute sale, a
Ownership of copyrighted material is shown by proof of originality
disputable presumption arose that consideration was paid. A mere
and copyrightability. While it is true that where the complainant
allegation that no payment was received is not sufficient to dispel
presents a copyright certificate in support of the claim if
such legal presumption.
infringement, the validity and ownership of the copyright is
presumed. This presumption, however, is rebuttable and it cannot
Process; Perpetuation of Testimony; Discovery;
be sustained where other evidence in records casts doubt on the
Examinations
question of ownership, as in this case.

The presumption of validity to a certificate of copyright registration Security Bank Corp. v. CA - SBC tried to foreclose A’s property.
merely orders the burden of proof. The applicant should not motions to Produce and Inspect Documents (Rule 27), asking SBC
ordinarily be forced, in the first instance, to prove all the multiple to produce the loans it had with X, the real estate mortgage, and
facts that underline the validity of the copyright unless the the SPA so A could prepare its answer properly.
respondent, effectively challenging them, shifts the burden of
doing so to the applicant. In order that a Motion for Production & Inspection of Documents
be granted, the following requisites must be met:
Here, evidence negating originality and copyrightability as elements 1. The party must file a motion for the production or
of copyright ownership was satisfactorily proffered by B. inspection of documents or things, showing good cause
therefor;
Mactan-Cebu v. Unchuan – A was a co-owner of a land which 2. Notice of the motion must be served to all other parties of
was allegedly sold by A to B. This is evidenced by a deed of sale the case;
only signed by A. After some time, the land was transferred to 3. The motion must designate the documents, papers, books,
MIAA. C seeks to nullify the deed of sale for A’s lack of authority accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things
and for lack of consideration. SC ruled that the sale was invalid which the party wishes to be produced and inspected;
4. Such documents, etc. are not privileged;
insofar as to the other co-owners’ portions for A’s lack of authority
5. Such documents, etc. constitute or contain evidence
part but not for lack of consideration for A’s part.
material to any matter involved in the action; and
6. Such documents, etc. are in the possession, custody or
Sec 3, R131 identifies the following as disputable presumptions:
control of the other party.
The purpose of modes of discovery are:
such manner as to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the person
a. To narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties,
subject to the inquiry.
and;
b. To ascertain the facts relative to those issues.
Eagleridge v. Cameron Granville – The availment of a motion
for production, as one of the modes of discovery, is not limited to
Republic v. Sandiganbayan – 2 of the respondents in a
the pre-trial stage. Rule 27 does not provide for any time frame
reversion case pursuant to EO 14 presented a motion for leave to
within which the discovery mode of production or inspection of
file interrogatories under Rule 25 to ask who the PCGG
documents can be utilized. The rule only requires leave of court
Commissioner that authorized their inclusion in the case. A motion
"upon due application and a showing of due cause."
to inspect documents was also filed.
In Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, this court
Sec. 1 Rule 25 states that if the party served with interrogatories
held that since the rules are silent as to the period within which
is a juridical entity such as a “public or private corporation or a
modes of discovery may still be requested, it is necessary to
partnership or association,” the same shall be answered by any
determine:
officer. Fishing expeditions are precisely permitted through the
a. the purpose of discovery;
modes of discovery.
b. whether, based on the stage of the proceedings and
evidence presented thus far, allowing it is proper and
The truth is that evidentiary matters may be inquired into and
would facilitate the disposition of the case; and
learned by the parties before the trial. Indeed, it is the purpose
c. whether substantial rights of parties would be unduly
and policy of the law that the parties – before the trial if not
prejudiced.
indeed before pre-trial, should discover or inform themselves of all
This court further held that "the use of discovery is
the facts relevant to their action, and also those known to their
encouraged, for it operates with desirable flexibility under the
adversaries. discretionary control of the trial court."
The various modes or instruments of discovery are meant to serve
Go v. People – A was charged with Other Deceits under Art. 318
as:
of the RPC. With B, a witness for Prosecution, being treated in
a. A device, along with the pre-trial hearing to narrow and
Cambodia for a medical condition, the private prosecutor filed a
clarify the basic issues between the parties; and
motion to take B’s oral deposition due to ill health. A opposed and
b. As a device for ascertaining the facts relative to those
was upheld by the Court.
issues.
Even in criminal proceedings, there is no doubt as to the
The evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable the parties, to obtain
availability of conditional examination of witnesses—both for the
the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil
benefit of the defense, as well as the prosecution.
trials and thus prevent that said trials are carried on in the dark.
Hence, the deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad
The procedure under Rule 23 to 28 of the Rules of Court allows the
and liberal treatment. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts
taking of depositions in civil cases, either upon oral examination or
gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that
written interrogatories, before any judge, notary public or person
end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts
authorized to administer oaths at any time or place within the
he has in his possession.
Philippines; or before any PH consular official, commissioned
officer or person authorized to administer oaths in a foreign
Of course, there are limitations to discovery, even when permitted
country, with no additional requirement except upon reasonable
to be undertaken without leave. Limitations arise when it can be
notice in writing to the other party.
shown that the examination is being conducted in bad faith, or in
 Ex: A party who is not an accused in a criminal case is allowed not
But for purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more to take the witness stand in administrative or civil cases that
particularly of a prosecution witness who would forseeably be partake of the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a
unavailable for trial, the testimonial examination should be made criminal proceeding.
before the court, or at least before the judge, where the case is
pending as required by the clear mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 Here, the case was not criminal in nature. Like an ordinary
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. witness, they can invoke the right against self-incrimination only
when the incriminating question is actually asked of them. Only if
Since the conditional examination of a prosecution witness must and when incriminating questions are thrown their way can they
take place at no other place than the court where the case is refuse to answer on the ground of their right against self-
pending, the RTC properly nullified the MeTC’s orders granting the incrimination
motion to take the deposition of B before the Philippine consular
official in Laos, Cambodia. People v. Ayson – A was investigated by B for misusing PAL’s
money. B filed a case of estafa against B. A statement in the
Certainly, to take the deposition of the prosecution witness investigation (and handwritten letter were introduced by
elsewhere and not before the very same court where the case is prosecution. Judged admitted them.
pending would not only deprive a detained accused of his right to
attend the proceedings but also deprive the trial judge of the SC held that the 2 rights under art. III, sec. 4:
opportunity to observe the prosecution witness’ deportment and
properly assess his credibility, which is especially intolerable when a. The right against self-incrimination —the right of a person
the witness’ testimony is crucial to the prosecution’s case against not to be compelled to be a witness against himself
the accused. b. The rights of a person in custodial interrogation, i.e., the
rights of every suspect "under investigation for the
commission of an offense."
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE The right against self-incrimination is not self- executing or
automatically operational. It must be claimed and may be waived,
expressly, or impliedly, as by a failure to claim it at the appropriate
Examination of Witnesses time.

Rosete v. Lim – A case of Annulment of Title was filed against A In fine, a person suspected of having committed a crime and
by subsequently charged with its commission in court, has the
B. B moved that A be deposed. A claims that since there are two following rights in the matter of his testifying or producing
criminal cases (BP 22 and estafa) pending against, to permit the evidence, to wit:
taking of the deposition would be violative of their right against a. BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or with the public
self- incrimination because by means of the oral deposition. prosecutor, for preliminary investigation), but after having
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his liberty
GR: Only an accused in a criminal case can refuse to take the in some significant way, and on being interrogated by the
witness stand. The right to refuse to take the stand does not police: the continuing right to remain silent and to counsel,
generally apply to parties in administrative cases or proceedings. and to be informed thereof, not to be subjected to force,
The parties thereto can only refuse to answer if incriminating violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which
questions are propounded. vitiates the free will; and to have evidence obtained in
violation of these rights rejected;
b. AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT —
 a. to refuse to be a witness;
D was presented B as adverse witness. B now says that she should
b. not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him
not be bound by D’s testimony.
by such refusal;
c. to testify in his own behalf, subject to cross-
The delineation of a piece of evidence as part of the evidence of
examination by the prosecution;
one party or the other is only significant in determining whether
d. WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse to answer a specific
the party on whose shoulders lies the burden of proof was able to
question which tends to incriminate him for some
meet the quantum of evidence needed to discharge the burden. In
crime other than that for which he is then
civil cases, that burden devolves upon the plaintiff who must
prosecuted.
establish her case by preponderance of evidence. Thus, it barely
matters who with a piece of evidence is credited. In the end, the
Here, A was not under custodial investigation during the
court will have to consider the entirety of the evidence presented
administrative inquiry where the statement and the letter were
by both parties.
taken. Hence, they are admissible.
That the witness is the adverse party does not necessarily mean
Dans v. People – A and B were charged with RA 3019 for
that the calling party will not be bound by the former’s testimony.
accepting employment in and/or acting as Director and Chairman
The fact remains that it was at his instance that his adversary was
of the PGHFI while having pending businesses (lease agreements)
put on the witness stand. Unlike an ordinary witness, the calling
with the LRTA. A demurrer was filed and denied.
party may impeach an adverse witness in all respects as if he had
been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of his bad
Although a demurrer to evidence must be resolved based on the
character.
evidence of the prosecution, there is nothing in the rules which
would bar the court form taking cognizance of any matter taken up
Under a rule permitting the impeachment of an adverse witness,
during the trial or which has become part of the records of the
although the calling party does not vouch for the witness’ veracity,
case, especially in the instance where the disputed evidence was
he is nonetheless bound by his testimony if it is not contradicted or
taken in advance at the request of the defendant himself.
remains unrebutted
Here, A moved for X’s testimony which was used to convict him.
Canque v. CA – A filed a case against B for collection. A won on
Such was introduced into the record in exactly the same manner
the basis of Book of Collectible Accounts. B argues that it was a
as any other testimony would be presented in evidence during
memorandum to refresh the witness’ memory which is not
trial. Being already part of the record in these cases, the advance
admissible as evidence while A argues that it is admissible under
testimony of X could be taken judicial notice of. Having been given
Rule 132, §10 of the Rules of Court which provide for when witness
in the course of the proceedings in these cases, the testimony of X
may refer to memorandum.
constitutes judicial admission of A who made it part of the record
of these cases. Since X’s testimony was given in open court and
While it is true that where the offer is made for two or more
duly recorded, the Court could not just ignore the solemn
purposes and the evidence is incompetent for one of them, the
declarations therein on the technicality that the testimony had not
evidence should be excluded, the Book was not really being
been formally offered in evidence.
presented for another purpose but for purpose of showing the
amount of B’s indebtedness.
Chua Gaw v. Chua – A, B and C inherited a company from X.
They partitioned and transferred their interest to A. A sold the
company to D. B loaned from D and when D tried to collect, B
Under the Rule 132, §10, the memorandum used to refresh the
reasoned that the money was payment for his share in the
memory of the witness does not constitute evidence, and may not
company. During trial,
be admitted as such, for the simple reason that the witness has
just the same to testify on the basis of refreshed memory. In
other
words, where the witness has testified independently of or after his
opposing party or order from the court, there is nothing in the
testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in
rules that prohibits a witness from hearing the testimonies of other
dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative
witnesses.
evidence. It is self-evident that a witness may not be corroborated
by any written statement prepared wholly by him. He cannot be
more credible just because he supports his open-court declaration
this measure is meant to prevent connivance or collusion among
with written statements of the same facts even if he did prepare
witnesses. The efficacy of excluding or separating witnesses has
them during the occasion in dispute, unless the proper predicate of
long been recognized as a means of discouraging fabrication,
his failing memory is properly laid down.
inaccuracy, and collusion. However, without any motion from
the opposing party or order from the court, there is nothing
People v. Plasencia – In a case of robbery with homicide, the
in the rules that prohibits a witness from hearing the
accused questioned the credibility of prosecution’s witness who
testimonies of other witnesses.
kept on looking at her palm for notes.
People v. Singer – A’s accomplice, B, testified that A and B
The witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a
fabricated a story for A’s defense. A argued that B only testified
fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his
that for clemency. To rebut A, B presented a C, a person to whom
direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately
B told about the fabrication before trial.
thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his
memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or
A argues that the rebuttal testimony of C was an illegal buttressing
recorded. The use of memory aid is not altogether proscribed in
of B’s sworn trial testimony by a showing of previous extrajudicial,
the rules of court. It is in the discretion of the court.
unsworn statements of like import.
Design Sources International Inc. v. Eristingcol – A objects to
Court held that where the testimony of a witness is assailed as a
B as witness as B already heard the testimony of a preceding
recent fabrication, it may be confirmed by proof of declarations of
witness.
the same tenor before the motive to falsify existed. (Recent
Fabrication Rule)
Court found that A failed to substantiate her claim that there was a
prior request for the exclusion of other witnesses during the
"Recent" has a relative, not an absolute meaning. It means that
presentation of Kenneth. A did not even allege in her Comment
the defense is charging the witness not with mistake or confusion,
that there was any such request.
but with making up a false story well after the event.
SEC. 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses. — On any trial or
"Recently fabricated" means the same thing as fabricated to meet
hearing, the judge may exclude from the court any witness not at
the exigencies of the case. When the veracity of a witness is
the time under examination, so that he may not hear the
subject to challenge because of motive to fabricate, it is competent
testimony of other witnesses. The judge may also cause witnesses
to put in evidence statements made by him consistent with what
to be kept separate and to be prevented from conversing with one
he says on the stand, made before the motive arose.
another until all shall have been examined.
This happened in this case as C's evidence was properly received,
Exclusion of witnesses is meant to prevent connivance or collusion
to refute the inference urged by the defense, that B was testifying
among witnesses. The efficacy of excluding or separating
at the trial under the influence of a motive which prompted him to
witnesses has long been recognized as a means of discouraging
falsify
fabrication, inaccuracy, and collusion. However, without any
motion from the
Galman v. Paramar – A testified before the Agrava Board, a fact-
finding body created by Marcos to investigate the assassination of
Under the law, entries in the Certificate of Identification of Dead
Aquino.
Body are deemed prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein,
i.e., that a body has been properly identified as that of B.
In a case of murder, A moved that his testimony before the Agrava
Board be stricken off record. Court agreed as the first portion of §5
This prima facie evidence of identification cannot be rebutted by an
of PD 1886 (creating the Agrava Board) prevented them from not
extremely meticulous fault-finding inquiry into the chain of custody
testifying so, they could not have “voluntarily waived” such rights.
of the body of the victim, as such body cannot be easily replaced
or substituted by ill-minded persons. Also, there was no indication
Classifications of Immunity Status:
of any impropriety or irregularity committed by the medico-legal
a. Use Immunity – prohibits use of witness’ compelled
officer in this case with respect to the autopsy on the body
testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection with
the criminal prosecution of the witness
Siguan v. Lim – A is indebted to B. B learned that A executed a
b. Transactional Immunity – grants immunity to the witness
Deed of Donation to his children and sought to rescind it for fraud,
from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled
stating that it was antedated to show that it was executed prior to
testimony relates.
incurring the debt. B argues that notarial documents are prima
facie evidence of their execution, not of the facts which gave rise
§5 of PD 1886 belongs to the first type. Hence, admitting the
to their execution and of the date of the latter (which pertains to
testimony would be going against their right against self-
public documents).
incrimination.
SEC. 23. Public documents as evidence. – Documents consisting of
entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a
Authentication and Proof of Documents
public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
All other public documents are evidence, even against a third
Suerte-Felipe v. People – A was charged with homicide. A claims
person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the
that there was insufficiency of physical evidence to convict him.
date of the latter.
SC ruled that While physical evidence ranks very high in the
SC ruled that the phrase “all other public documents” means those
hierarchy of trustworthy evidence and can be relied upon
public documents other than the entries in public records made in
principally to ascertain the truth, its presentation is not absolutely
the performance of a duty by a public officer. And these include
indispensable to sustain a conviction.
notarial documents, like the subject deed of donation.
The entries found in the assailed Autopsy Report should be
It bears repeating that notarial documents, except last wills and
deemed prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, as there
testaments, are public documents and are evidence of the facts
had been no proof of any intent on the part of Dr. Lagat to falsely
that gave rise to their execution and of their date. Hence, the
testify on the identity of the victim's body.
belated registration of the Deed is not enough to overcome the
presumption as to the truthfulness of the date stated therein.
The presentation in evidence of the Certificate of Identification of
Dead Body, the latter being a public record made in the
Antillon v. Barcelon - Before private documents may be admitted
performance of a duty of officers in the Medico-Legal Office of the
in evidence their due execution and delivery must be proved. Their
National Bureau of Investigation, is governed by Rule 132,
due execution and delivery may be proved:
Sections 19 and 23 of the Rules of Court.
a. by anyone who saw the document executed,
 b. by evidence of the handwriting of the maker, or
addressed, authority of such person is presumed and the reply
c. by a subscribing witness.
letter is admissible against the alleged principal without
preliminary proof of authority.
On the other hand, a public document duly acknowledged before a
notary public, under his hand and seal with his certificate thereto
The ordinary conduct of men, and the inherent improbability of the
attached, is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due
given act occurring if it were not authorized, may also furnish
execution and delivery until some question is raised as to the
prima facie evidence. Thus, if I write to a business house
verity of said acknowledgment and certificate.
concerning a matter of business, and receive in due course a reply
to my letter, purporting to be made through a manager,
Security Bank v. Triumph - Genuineness of a standard writing
superintendent, or other agent or officer within whose department
may be established by any of the following:
such a matter would ordinarily lie, a presumption that he so replied
a. by the admission of the person sought to be charged with
with the authority of his principal would arise which would suffice
the disputed writing made at or for the purposes of the
until evidence to the contrary was offered.
trial, or by his testimony;
b. by witnesses who saw the standards written or to whom or
With respect to a letter received thus in due course of mail and
in whose hearing the person sought to be charged
purporting to come from a person to whom a letter has previously
acknowledged the writing thereof;
been sent and to be in reply thereto, a presumption of fact is
c. by evidence showing that the reputed writer of the
indulged in favor of the genuineness of the signature and the letter
standard has acquiesced in or recognized the same, or that
is admissible in evidence without further authentication; although,
it has been adopted and acted upon by him in his business
in order to obtain the benefit of this presumption, it must first be
transactions or other concerns.
proven that a letter was written and mailed, to which the letter
offered is an answer.
Adequate knowledge of genuineness of signatures could be
obtained either by:
Malayan v. Phil. Nail and Wires - Under the Rules, documents
a. seeing the person write some other documents or
are either public or private. Private documents are those that do
signatures (ex visu scriptionis)
not fall under any of the enumerations in Section 19, Rule 132 of
b. seeing documents otherwise known to him to have been
the Rules of Court. Section 209 of the same law, in turn, provides
written by the person in question (ex scriptis olim visis); or
that before any private document is received in evidence, its due
c. examining, in or out of court, for the express purpose of
execution and authenticity must be proved either by anyone who
obtaining such knowledge, the documents said to have
saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the
been written by the person in question (ex comparatione
genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
scriptorum).
Before a private document is admitted in evidence, it must be
Under the third, it is essential that (a) certain specimens of
authenticated either by:
handwriting were seen and considered by her and (b) they were
a. the person who executed it,
genuinely written by the person in question.
b. the person before whom its execution was acknowledged,
c. any person who was present and saw it executed, or
Here, the photocopies were not originals of the document
d. who after its execution, saw it and recognized the
purported to have the signatures of certain people.
signatures, or the person to whom the parties to the
instruments had previously confessed execution thereof.
Anstine v. McWilliams – Where a letter sent in the ordinary
course of business is answered by an agent of the individual or
corporation
Heirs of Lacsa v. CA - A objects to the application of the ancient
"Sec. 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The opinion of a
document rule since the "first pages" of said documents do not
witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in
bear the signatures of the alleged parties thereto, which allegedly
evidence regarding…a handwriting with which he has sufficient
constitutes an indelible blemish that can beget unlimited
familiarity…
alterations. SC ruled disagreed. Under the "ancient document
rule," for a private ancient document to be exempt from proof of
Corollarily, Section 22, Rule 132 of the same Rules provides that:
due execution and authenticity:
a. it must be more than thirty (30) years old;
"Sec. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The
b. it must be produced from a custody in which it would
handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
naturally be found if genuine; and
believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has
c. that is unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of
seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his
suspicion.
upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence
Sanson v. CA – In an estate settlement proceeding, the wife of a
respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison,
claimant testified as to the deceased’s signing of certain checks.
made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated
Administrator objected stating that this is a circumvention of the
as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or
dead man’s statute and that the wife had identical and unitary
proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge."
interest with her husband and mother-in-law.
Lazaro v. Agustin - Admissions against interest are those made
First, the Dead Man’s Statute only applies to prohibit the testimony
by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or identified in
of the following:
legal interest with such party, and are admissible whether or not
a. Parties to a case
the declarant is available as a witness.
b. Their assignors or
c. Persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted
Declarations against interest are those made by a person who is
The list is exclusive. Hence, the wife may testify.
neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit, are secondary
evidence, and constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. They
More importantly, SC held that relationship to a party has never
are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness.
been recognized as an adverse factor in determining either the
credibility of the witness or—subject only to well recognized
GR: a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred
exceptions none of which is here present—the admissibility of the
upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents
testimony.
acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the
presumption of regularity.
Mariano v. Roxas – This is an administrative case filed by A
against B, a clerk, charging her with forgery and dishonesty. Here,
Ex: Presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing
the officemate of A for 5 years testified on B’s alleged forgery of
evidence to the contrary.
A’s signature.
Moreover, not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule
Her opinion as to complainant’s genuine signature is admissible in
on authentication. Thus, an affidavit does not automatically
evidence pursuant to Section 50, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
become a public document just because it contains a notarial jurat.
Evidence which provides:
The presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be
affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization
was regular.
Here, the presumption was overthrown since the regularity in the
The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due execution
execution of the sworn statement was challenged in the
of a notarial document lies on the one contesting the same.
proceedings below where its prima facie validity was overthrown
Furthermore, an allegation of forgery must be proved by clear and
by the highly questionable circumstances under which it was
convincing evidence, and whoever alleges it has the burden of
supposedly executed, as well as the testimonies of witnesses who
proving the same
testified on the improbability of execution of the sworn statement,
as well as on the physical condition of the signatory, at the time
Here, A, the person impugning the validity of the notarized
the questioned document was supposedly executed.
documents, relied heavily on his bare denial, at the same time
taking sanctuary behind other circumstances which supposedly
The testimony of the notary public did not suffice to rebut the
cast doubt on the authenticity of the documents. A did not bother
evidence of those objecting to the sworn statements considering
to present corroborating witnesses much less an independent
his admission that the affidavit was already thumbmarked when
expert witness who could declare with authority and objectivity
presented to him by one who claimed to be the author and whom,
that the challenged signatures are forged.
the witness said he did not know personally.
With regard to a “Marital Consent” document with a jurat, SC held
Patula v. People - To address the problem of controlling
that the presumption of regularity does not hold true as it is
inadmissible hearsay as evidence to establish the truth in a dispute
private writing. It is subject to the requirement of proof under
while also safeguarding a party’s right to cross-examine her
Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which states:
adversary’s witness, the ROC offers two solutions:
Section 20. Proof of private document. - Before any private
a. Require that all the witnesses in a judicial trial or hearing
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
be examined only in court under oath or affirmation (Sec.
execution and authenticity must be proved either:
1, Rule 132)
a. By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
b. Require that all witnesses be subject to the cross
b. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
examination by the adverse party (Sec. 6, Rule 132)
handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which
The requirement of authentication of a private document is
is claimed to be.
excused only in four instances, specifically:
a. when the document is an ancient one within the context of
Delfin v. Billones - Documents consisting of entries in public
Section 21, Rule 132
records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are
b. when the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. A duly-registered
document have not been specifically denied under oath by
death certificate is considered a public document and the entries
the adverse party;
found therein are presumed correct, unless the party who contests
c. when the genuineness and authenticity of the document
its accuracy can produce positive evidence establishing otherwise.
have been admitted; or
Nevertheless, this presumption is disputable.
d. when the document is not being offered as genuine.
Here, the documents presented were mere certifications and not
Pan Pacific v. CA - A notarized document carries the evidentiary
the certified copies or duly authenticated reproductions. They are
weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and it
not the public documents referred to by the Rules of Court, nor
has in its favor the presumption of regularity which may only be
even records of public documents; thus, they do not enjoy the
rebutted by evidence so clear and convincing.
presumption granted by the Rules.
Pacific Asia v. NLRC - A filed a complaint before the POEA to attesting to the fact
enforce an award by the Dubai Court which led to a compromise
between him and his foreign employer. As evidence of the
decision, he submitted a purported original copy of the decision in
Arabic, its English translation by an unknown translator, and a
copy of the transmittal letter by an honorary consul of Dubai to the
PHL.

Here, the foreign decision purports to be a written act or record of

an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country. Thus, it is
a public writing which falls under Sec. 20(A) (now Sec. 19(A)) of
Rule 132. Secs. 25 and 26 (now Secs. 24 and 25) provide for the
manner of proving these pieces of evidence.

SC ruled that the decision should have been accompanied with an

attestation (issued by the proper Dubai official having legal
custody of the original decision of the Dubai Court) that the copy
presented is a faithful copy of the original. Said attestation must
also have been authenticated by a PHL Consular Officer having
jurisdiction in Dubai. The transmittal letter did not comply with the
requirements of either the attestation under Sec. 26 or
authorization under Sec. 25.

Another defect in the admissibility of the Dubai Court decision the

accompanying translation.
Sec. 34 of Rule 132 requires that documents written in a non-
official language shall not be admitted as evidence unless
accompanied by a translation into English or Spanish or Filipino. In
Teng Giok Yan vs CA, the SC stressed the importance of having the
translation made by a court interpreter who must be of recognized
competence.

Here, the translation does not purport to have been made by an

official court interpreter of the PHL/Dubai Government. It did not
state who made it. The English translation also was not sworn to
as an accurate translation of the original Arabic decision. The
translation also had not been agreed upon by the parties as a true
and faithful one.

Cruz v. Cristobal - A, B and C are proving that they are

legitimate children of X in the first marriage. To prove their filiation
with the deceased, their baptismal certificates were presented. In
the case of A who was born on 31 January 1909, she produced a
certification issued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar
that records of birth for the years 1901, 1909, etc. were all
destroyed due to ordinary wear and tear.

Art. 172 of the FC: The filiation of legitimate children is

established by any of the following:
a. The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a
final judgment; or
b. An admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument and
signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate
filiation shall be proved by:
a. the open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate child; or
b. Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws.

"Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and Special

Laws," may consist of the child’s baptismal certificate, a
judicial admission, a family bible in which the child’s name has
been entered, common reputation respecting the child’s
pedigree, admission by silence, the testimony of witnesses,
and other kinds of proof of admission under Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court.

People v. Yap – Defense argues that the testimonies of the

prosecution were never offered nor admitted in evidence, nor
were the specific purposes for which they were offered duly
stated, contrary to sec. 34 and 35, R132 of the Rules of Court
and were not proper on appeal.

In actual practice, there is a difference between presentation of

evidence and offer of evidence at the trial of a case.

The presentation of evidence consists of putting in as evidence

the testimony of the witnesses or the documents relevant to
the issue.

An offer of evidence means the statement made by counsel as

to what he expects to prove through the witness. This is what
trial lawyers understand by the “offer of evidence”

Thus, “offer of evidence” as used in sec. 34 of R132 must be

understood to include the presentation or introduction of
evidence.
What is essential in order that an offer of testimony may be valid,
The certificate may be made by a secretary of an embassy or
therefore, is that the witness be called and asked appropriate
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or
questions.
by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in
the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated
In this case, all the prosecution witnesses were presented and
by the seal of his office.
examined before the court a quo, the questions and answers being
taken down in writing and such testimonies were offered thereafter
People v. Salison – [See abovementioned case]
to the trial court. If the appellants wanted the trial court to reject
GR: Section 33 prohibits the admission of a document in an
the evidence being introduced, they should have raised an
unofficial language.
objection. They cannot raise the question for the first time on
Ex: If in the interest of justice, it should be allowed when no
appeal.
objection was interposed. In certain cases, courts merely had the
document translated. Person who translates should testify.
People v. Salison - More than once, this Court has taken into
consideration documents written in a Philippine dialect,
Bloodgood v. Lynch – A collision occurred between A and B. A
unaccompanied by the required translation but which had been
State trooper was called by A to testify to a conversation with B at
admitted in evidence without objection by the accused. In those
the hospital after the accident in the presence of B’s father while
instances, the Court merely ordered official translations to be
she was being attended by a doctor there. A objected for it was in
made.
violation of the penal law prohibiting any person to enter a hospital
for the purpose of negotiating a settlement or obtaining a general
It is true that Section 33, Rule 132 of the revised Rules of Court release or statement, written or oral, from any person confined in
now prohibits the admission of such document in an unofficial
said hospital or sanitarium as a patient, with reference to any
language but we believe that in the interest of justice, such personal injuries for which said person is confined in said hospital.
injunction should not be taken literally here, especially since no
objection thereto was interposed by appellant, aside from the fact Court held that the section does not apply to a police officer
that appellant, the concerned parties and the judicial authorities or performing his duty. Then, A objected stating that her objection
personnel concerned appeared to be familiar with or included an objection to the testimony upon the ground that it was
knowledgeable of Cebuano in which the document was written. inadmissible against one of the defendants (not just her).
There was, therefore, no prejudice caused to appellant and no
reversible error was committed by that lapse of the trial court
Court held that if the objection in the instant case is a general one,
the ruling sustaining it will be upheld on the ground that the
Pacific Asia v. NLRC – [See abovementioned case]
evidence was inadmissible against the defendant A. However, if
the objection is a specific one, the ruling cannot be upheld.
Sps. Zalamea v. CA – This is the transpo case about overbooking.
The U.S. law or regulation allegedly authorizing overbooking has
Faden v. Estate of Midcap - It is incumbent upon the party
never been proved. Foreign laws do not prove themselves nor can
seeking to take advantage of the incompetency of a witness to
the courts take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they
interpose an objection on that ground, in the absence of which the
must be alleged and proved.
objection is deemed waived and the witness is properly allowed to
testify.
Written law may be evidenced by:
a. an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the
Failure of the party entitled to the protection of the statute "to
officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
object to the testimony of the witness," results in waiver. "An
deputy, and
administrator and his counsel, for example, may not be permitted
b. accompanied with a certificate that such officer has
to sit by without
custody.
objecting to the admission of evidence competent in itself, and to
when the witness took the witness stand. The witness identified
expect that the trial judge will rule it out on his own motion.
these pieces of evidence in his direct testimony but the account
and the exchanges between the witness and the defendant’s
Objection to the competency of a witness must be made, if known,
counsel (in cross) did not sufficiently describe the contents of the
before his examination in chief as to the matter on which he is
said pieces of evidence presented by the BIR.
alleged to be incompetent. When the question is put the objection
should be made. Generally speaking, all objection to the
Cruz-Arevalo v. Layosa – In a civil case, excluded several
competency of a witness as to a transaction with a deceased or
paragraphs in the affidavit without giving the plaintiff’s counsel a
incompetent person is deemed to be waived, if it is not made at
chance to comment on the objections raised by defendants. Judge
the time that the evidence is offered and at the first reasonable
points out that she gave the other party the chance to go over the
opportunity.
affidavit and make objections thereto like any direct testimonial
evidence. No written order is necessary because her rulings were
Dizon v. CA – In an estate proceeding, BIR’s claim was disallowed
made in open court during the course of trial and are already
because their witness, a revenue examiner who conducted
reflected in the transcript of the stenographic notes.
investigation on the estate tax, identified certain
documents/signatures which were not offered.
SC held that the Judge was correct. Objections based on
irrelevancy and immateriality need no specification or explanation.
SC held that it is clear that for evidence to be considered, the
Relevancy or materiality of evidence is a matter of logic, since it is
same must be formally offered. Corollarily, the mere fact that a
determined simply by ascertaining its logical connection to a fact in
particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does
issue in the case. The ruling on an objection must be given
not mean that it has already been offered as part of the evidence
immediately after an objection is made unless the court desires to
of a party.
take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented;
but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such
Identification of documentary evidence is done in the course of the
time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity
trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an
to meet the situations presented by the ruling.
exhibit.
People v. Godoy – In a case of rape and kidnapping, handwritten
Offer of documentary evidence is done only when the party rests
letters were adduced as evidence that the alleged victim and the
its case and not before. A party, therefore, may opt to formally
accused were actually lovers. Two former teachers of the accused
offer his evidence if he believes that it will advance his cause or
were introduced as witnesses to the alleged victim’s handwriting
not to do so at all.
but the RTC refused to give any probative value because no
handwriting expert was presented.
The Court ruled that although the doctrine in Vda de. Oñate
relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not formally
SC ruled that resort to questioned document examiners, more
offered to be admitted and considered by the trial court provided
familiarly called handwriting experts, is not mandatory.
the following requirements are present, viz.:
Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not indispensable
1. the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly
in examining or comparing handwriting. This is so since under
recorded and
Section 22, Rule
2. the same must have been incorporated in the records of
132 of the Rules of Court, the handwriting of a person may be
the case.
proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of
such person, because
In this case, the requirements were not satisfied. The assailed
a. he has seen the person write, or
pieces of evidence were presented and marked during the trial
particularly
 b. has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the
The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the trial
witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired
court to base its findings of fact and its judgment only and strictly
knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
on the evidence offered by the parties.
The said section further provides that evidence respecting the
A piece of document will remain a scrap of paper without probative
handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the
value unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the
witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine
purpose or purposes for which it is offered. The formal offer of
by the party against whom the evidence is offered or proved to be
evidence allows the parties the chance to object to the
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
presentation of an evidence which may not be admissible for the
purpose it is being offered.
The defense witnesses were able to identify victim’s handwriting
on the basis of the examination papers submitted to them by her
Requisites for exception:
in their respective subjects. This Court has likewise carefully
1. The same must have been duly identified by testimony
examined and compared the handwriting on the letters with the
duly recorded and
standard writing appearing on the test papers as specimens for
2. The same must have been incorporated in the records of
comparison and, contrary to the observations and conclusions of
the case.
the lower court, we are convinced beyond doubt that they were
The Court also considered exhibits which were not formally offered
written by one and the same person. More importantly, the victim
by the prosecution but were repeatedly referred to in the course of
herself categorically admitted that the handwriting on the
the trial by the counsel of the accused.
questioned letters belongs to her.
To identify is to prove the identity of a person or a thing.
Luzon Hydro v. CIR - In order that newly discovered evidence
Identification means proof of identity; the proving that a person,
may be ground for allowing new trial, it must be fairly shown that:
subject or article before the court is the very same that he or it is
a. the evidence is discovered after the trial;
alleged, charged or reputed to be.
b. such evidence should not have been discovered and
produced at the trial even with exercise of reasonable
Gumabon v. PNB
diligence;
Under Sec. 34 of the Rules of court, the court shall consider no
c. such evidence is material, not merely cumulative,
evidence which has NOT been formally offered. Formal offer means
corroborative, or impeaching; and
that the offeror shall inform the court of the purpose of introducing
d. evidence is of such weight that it would probably change
its exhibits into evidence.
the judgement if admitted.
Without a formal offer of evidence, courts cannot take notice of
RULE 133 (WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE)
this evidence even if this has been previously marked and
identified. The formal offer enables the judge to know the purpose
Landbank v. Oñate
or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. It
In civil cases, the party making the allegations has the burden of
also affords the opposing parties the chance to examine the
proving them by preponderance of evidence. Mere allegation is not evidence and to object to its admissibility.
sufficient.
We recognized the exceptions from the requirement of a formal
Laborte v. Pagsanjan offer of evidence, namely:
a. The evidence must have been duly identified by testimony
duly recorded; and
 b. The evidence must have been incorporated in the records
of the case.
Raymundo v. Lunaria
By preponderance of evidence is meant that the evidence as a
People v. Napat-a
whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. It refers
Accused contends that the prosecution failed to establish their case
to the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence on either
(drug-pushing) because they failed to present the carton box
side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term
containing dried marijuana leaves.
"greater weight of evidence" or "greater weight of the credible
evidence". It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as
SC held that the Foresic Chemist testified that the box and its
worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
contents were presented, Identified and marked as exhibits in
court (t.s.n. November 6, 1985, pp. 3-8). The subsequent loss of
Go v. CA
these exhibits did not affect the case for the trial court had
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish
described the evidence in the records. In People vs. Mate we ruled
his case by a preponderance of evidence. “Preponderance of
that even without the exhibits which have been incorporated into
evidence” is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
the records of the case, the prosecution can still establish the case
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be
because the witnesses properly Identified those exhibits and their
synonymous with the term “greater weight of the evidence” or
testimonies are recorded. Furthermore, in this case, appellant's
“greater weight of the credible evidence.”
counsel had cross- examined the prosecution witnesses who
testified on those exhibits.
Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis,
means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more
People v. Mate
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is
The defense questions the failure of the prosecutor to make a
offered in opposition thereto.
formal offer of his exhibits, although they have been marked and
identified. Such an oversight appears trivial because the entire
In this case, oral testimony, corroborated by documentary
evidence for the prosecution is recorded. Even without the exhibits
evidence which were identified and admitted prevailed over bare
which have been incorporated into the records of the case, the
oral testimony.
prosecution can still establish the case because the witnesses
properly identified those exhibits and their testimonies are
Sabili v. COMELEC
recorded.
As in all administrative cases, the quantum of proof necessary in
election cases is substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as
Heirs of Romana Saves et al. v. Escolastico Saves et al.
a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
It is a basic procedural rule that the court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for
While separately, the evidence might fail to convincingly show a
which the evidence is offered must be specified.
fact sought to be proved, collectively, the pieces of evidence tend
to sufficiently establish the said fact.
However, in People v. Napat-a, citing People v. Mate, we relaxed
the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not formally offered to be
People v. Teehankee
admitted and considered by the trial court provided the following
Identification testimony has at least three components:
requirements are present, viz:
a. Witnessing a crime, whether as a victim or a bystander,
1. The same must have been duly identified by testimony
involves perception of an event actually occurring.
duly recorded and
b. The witness must memorize details of the event.
2. The same must have been incorporated in the records of
the case.
 c. The witness must be able to recall and communicate
SC has likewise followed the harmless error rule in our jurisdiction.
accurately.
In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, courts
examine its damaging quality and its impact to the substantive
Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various
rights of the litigant.
ways:
a. Showups where the suspect alone is brought face to face
If the impact is slight and insignificant, courts disregard the error
with the witness for identification.
as it will not overcome the weight of the properly admitted
b. Mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to evidence against the prejudiced party.
identify the suspect.
c. Lineups where a witness identifies the suspect from a Here, the reference by the trial judge to reports about the
group of persons lined up for the purpose. troublesome character of the accused is a harmless error. The
reference is not the linchpin of the inculpatory evidence
In resolving the admissibility of and relying on outofcourt appreciated by the trial judge in convicting appellant. Accused was
identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of convicted mainly because of his identification by three (3)
circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: eyewitnesses with high credibility.
1. The witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of
the crime; NY Life Insurance v. Mcneely
2. The witness' degree of attention at that time; The proof of an ultimate fact may be made in two manners:
3. The accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; a. Direct or sometimes called, testimonial evidence, and
4. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the b. Indirect or, as it is frequently denominated, circumstantial
identification; evidence.
5. The length of time between the crime and the But it is the rule of law that while a conclusion as to an ultimate
identification; and, fact may be based upon an inference from circumstantial evidence,
6. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure. in reaching such conclusion the inference as to the ultimate fact
may not be based on an inference as to the existence of the
Most Important Doctrine: circumstantial facts.
English Exchequer Rule - A trial court's error as to the admission of
evidence was presumed to have caused prejudice and therefore, No inference of fact or of law is reliable drawn from premises which
almost automatically required a new trial. are uncertain. Whenever circumstantial evidence is relied upon to
prove a fact, the circumstances must be proved, and not
Exchequer rule has long been laid to rest for even English appellate themselves presumed.
courts now disregard an error in the admission of evidence "unless
in its opinion, some substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has In criminal cases, is to be based on a chain of inferences, each and
been occasioned." every link in that chain must exclude every other reasonable
hypothesis.
American courts adopted this approach after the enactment of a
1915 federal statute which required a federal appellate court to In civil cases, involving only property rights, the rule is not so
"give judgment after an examination of the entire record before strict, and it is sufficient, if the ultimate fact is to be determined by
the court, without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions an inference from facts which are established by direct evidence,
which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties." that it be more probable than any other inference which could be
drawn from the facts thus proven.
But when an inference on the probability of the ultimate fact must
b. Considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons
be drawn from facts whose existence is itself based only on an
are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of
inference or a chain of inferences, it will be found that the courts
the complainant must be scrutinized with great caution.
have, with very few exceptions, held that all prior links in the chain
c. Evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
of inferences must be shown with the same certainty as is required
merit and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
in criminal cases, in order to support a final inference of the
weakness of the evidence for the defense.
probability of the ultimate fact in issue. We think that this is the
true meaning of the "INFERENCE UPON INFERENCE" rule in civil
In a criminal case, every circumstance or evidence favoring a
cases and that the courts do not mean that under no
man’s innocence must be taken into account. If the inculpatory
circumstances may an inference be drawn from an inference, but
facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
rather that the prior inferences must be established to the
interpretations, one of which is consistent with innocence and the
exclusion of any other reasonable theory rather than merely by a
other with guilty, then the evidence does not pass the test of
probability, in order that the last inference of the probability of the
moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. Thus,
ultimate fact may be based thereon. This rule is not based on an
the presumption of innocence founded on the basic principle of
application of the exact rules of logic, but upon the pragmatic
justice as embodied in the Constitution prevails in the present
principle that a certain quantum of proof is arbitrarily required
case.
when the courts are asked to take away life, liberty or property.
Where the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus probandi
People v. Quizon
for a pronouncement of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the
The foregoing elements must all be obtaining in order to aptly
constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused will
warrant the conviction of an accused. The circumstances proved
result in acquittal.
must be congruous with each other, consistent with the hypothesis
that the accused is guilty and inconsistent with any other
People v. Lorenzo
hypothesis except that of guilt. It must be shown:
An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be
1. That there is more than one circumstance and the facts
sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of
from which the inferences are derived have been firmly
corpus delicti.
established and
2. That the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
What must be corroborated is the extrajudicial confession and not
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
the testimony of the person to whom the confession is made, and
the corroborative evidence required is not the testimony of another
A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be
person who heard the confession but the evidence of corpus delicti.
upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to
Corpus delicti is the body (material substance) upon which a crime
the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.
has been committed, e.g., the corpse of a murdered man or the
charred remains of a house burned down. In a derivative sense, it
People v. Coderes
means the substantial fact that a crime was committed.
The Court has been guided by the following principles in
reviewing rape cases:
Elements of Corpus Delicti:
a. An accusation of rape can be made with facility and while
a. A certain result has been proved (e.g. a man has died/
the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult
building burned), and
for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove the
b. Some person is criminally responsible for the act.
charge.
Sec 3, R133, RoC does not mean that every element of the crime
b. The conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or
charged must be clearly established by independent evidence apart
immediately after the killing of the victim; and
from the confession. It means merely that there should be some
c. The nature, location and number of wounds sustained by
evidence tending to show the commission of the crime apart from
the victim.
the confession. Otherwise stated, the other evidence need not,
Again, the number of wounds and the location of these wounds
independently of the confession, establish the corpus delicti
inflicted on David and Erwin clearly show intent to kill.
beyond a reasonable doubt.
HKSAR v. Hon. Olalia and Muñoz
Except when expressly required by law, the testimony of a single
An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof
person, if credible and positive and if it satisfies the court as to the
required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to
beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of
convict. In determining the value and credibility of evidence,
proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While
witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered.
administrative in character, the standard of substantial evidence
used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given the object
People v. Base
of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee
Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that an
from fleeing our jurisdiction.
extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient
ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which
delicti.
he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in
granting bail in extradition cases. According to him, this standard
Circumstantial evidence (sometimes called indirect or presumptive
should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher
evidence) is sufficient to support a conviction, and direct evidence
than preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee must
is not always necessary.
prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk
and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition
Zabala v. People
court.
Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. – Circumstantial
evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
1. There is more than one circumstance;
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven;
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is

essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must
constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and
reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of
the others, as the guilty person. The circumstantial evidence must
exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the
crime.

Guevarra v. People
Evidence to prove intent to kill may consist of:
a. The means used by the malefactors;