2022 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW

Handout No. 6
EVIDENCE

GENERAL CONCEPTS

Equipoise Rule Leads to the Dismissal of the Case

Even from a pure evaluation of only the parties’ testimonial evidence, wherein doubts on the
truthfulness of their respective narrations of the relevant facts are perceived and there may be
difficulty in determining who between respondent Natividad and petitioner Lolita is the more
credible witness and in which side the testimonial evidence preponderates, the evidence of the
parties should, at the very least, be held to be in equipoise. That being the situation, respondents,
who have the burden of proof in the present case, fail upon their cause of action. As neither party
was able to make out a case, neither side having established his/her cause of action, the Court
can only leave them where they are and it has no choice but to dismiss the complaint. Mendoza
vs. Palugod, Sr., 867 SCRA 299, G.R. No. 220517 June 20, 2018, J. Caguioa

An Extrajudicial Confession Taken by a Bantay Bayan Without Counsel is Inadmissible

Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the case of the
“bantay bayan,” are recognized by the local government unit to perform functions relating to the
preservation of peace and order at the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the legality of the
actions taken by the head of “bantay bayan,” and the specific scope of duties and responsibilities
delegated to a “bantay bayan,” particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial investigation,
any inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the
entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of
the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned. The extrajudicial
confession of the appellant, which was taken without a counsel, is therefore inadmissible in
evidence. People vs. Lauga, 615 SCRA 548, G.R. No. 186228 March 15, 2010

Confession Made Before News Reporters Without Undue Influence is Admissible

A confession made before news reporters, absent any showing of undue influence from the
police authorities, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for the crime confessed to by the accused.
The fact that the extrajudicial confession was made by Antonio while inside a detention cell does
not by itself render such confession inadmissible, contrary to what Antonio would like this Court
to believe. In People v. Domantay (1999), where the accused was also interviewed while inside a
jail cell, this Court held that such circumstance alone does not taint the extrajudicial confession
of the accused, especially since the same was given freely and spontaneously. People vs.
Dacanay, 807 SCRA 130, G.R. No. 216064 November 7, 2016, J. Caguioa

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 13
 2022 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
EVIDENCE

ADMISSIBILITY

Chain of Custody Rule is a Statutory Exclusionary Rule of Evidence

With the acquittal of the accused-appellant in relation to the charge of violation of Section 5, RA
9165, it follows then that he should likewise be acquitted as to the charge of violation of Section
15, RA 9165. The case for violation of Section 15, RA 9165 was filed because the accused-
appellant was found positive for use of methamphetamine hydrochloride after he was subjected
to a drug test following his arrest. This was done in compliance with Section 38, RA 9165. The
accused-appellant was thus subjected to a drug test as a result of his apprehension which, as
already illustrated, was conducted in violation of Section 21, RA 9165 — a rule that is a matter of
substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. Section 21, RA
9165 is a statutory exclusionary rule of evidence, bearing in mind that, under the Rules of Court,
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these
rules. The results of the drug test cannot thus be used against the accused-appellant for it is
considered, under the law, as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” People vs. Angeles, 887 SCRA 1, G.R.
No. 237355 November 21, 2018, J. Caguioa

As a Rule, Courts are Not Authorized to Take Judicial Notice of Other Cases in the Same Court

It is well-settled that, as a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in the
adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents of the records of other cases, even
when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact
that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending before the same judge. It is true
that the said rule admits of exceptions, namely: (a) In the absence of objection, and as a matter
of convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a
case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it, when, with the
knowledge of the opposing party, reference is made to it for that purpose, by name and number
or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated; or (b) when the original record of
the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court’s direction,
at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case
then pending. Bernas vs. Estate of Felipe Yu Han Yat, 877 SCRA 325, G.R. No. 195908 August 15,
2018, J. Caguioa

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 13
 2022 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
EVIDENCE

It is Judicial Notice that Audited Financial Statements Are Made Available to the Public

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that audited financial statements (AFS) submitted by
corporations, as required by Section 141 of the Corporation Code, are made available to the
public by the SEC. Hence, the Court fails to see how Atty. Castillon violated any law when he
attached a copy of Ready Form’s AFS in the Petition for Blacklisting he filed with the NPO. Ready
Form, Incorporated vs. Castillon, Jr., 859 SCRA 531, A.C. No. 11774 March 21, 2018, J. Caguioa

Judicial Admissions are Conclusive and Legally Binding on the Party Making Them

Judicial admissions made by parties in the course of the trial in the same case are conclusive and
do not require further evidence to prove them. They are legally binding on the party making them
except when it is shown that they have been made through palpable mistake, or that no such
admission was made, neither of which was shown to exist in this case. Thus, Choi himself having
admitted liability, the only question that remains for the Court to resolve is the extent of such
liability. Park vs. Choi, 899 SCRA 90, G.R. No. 220826 March 27, 2019, J. Caguioa

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Secondary Evidence May Be Presented Upon Proof of Execution/Existence and Cause of Lost

According to Section 5, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, when the original document
has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its
execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove
its contents by presenting secondary evidence. These secondary evidence pertain to: (1) a copy
of the lost document, (2) by a recital of the contents of the lost document in some authentic
document, or (3) by a testimony of a witnesses, in the order stated. Hence, in order for
respondent CAMACOP to prove the existence and contents of the purportedly lost Deed of Sale,
it was incumbent upon it to present either (1) a copy of the purported Deed of Sale, or (2) an
authentic document containing a recital of the contents of the purported Deed of Sale, or (3) a
witness who can testify as to the existence and contents of the purported Deed of Sale, in that
order. Heir of Pastora T. Cardenas and Eustaquio Cardenas vs. The Christian and Missionary
Alliance Churches of the Philippines, Inc., 898 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 222614 March 20, 2019, J.
Caguioa

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 13
 2022 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
EVIDENCE

The Original Document Rule Should Be Invoked After Offer is Made in Order Not to Be Waived

The best evidence rule requires that the original document be produced whenever its contents
are the subject of inquiry, except in certain limited cases laid down in Section 3 of Rule 130.
However, to set this rule in motion, a proper and timely objection is necessary. The best evidence
rule requires that when the subject of inquiry are the contents of a document, no evidence is
admissible other than the original document itself except in the instances mentioned in Section
3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. As such, mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible
pursuant to the best evidence rule. Nevertheless, evidence not objected to is deemed admitted
and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment. Courts are not precluded
to accept in evidence a mere photocopy of a document when no objection was raised when it
was formally offered. In order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of evidence
must be made at the proper time, and the grounds specified. Objection to evidence must be
made at the time it is formally offered. In case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all
the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the
evidence is being offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the
documentary evidence may be made. And when a party failed to interpose a timely objection to
evidence at the time they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be considered as waived.
This is true even if by its nature the evidence is inadmissible and would have surely been rejected
if it had been challenged at the proper time. Moreover, grounds for objection must be specified
in any case. Grounds for objections not raised at the proper time shall be considered waived,
even if the evidence was objected to on some other ground. Thus, even on appeal, the appellate
court may not consider any other ground of objection, except those that were raised at the
proper time. Tapayan vs. Martinez, 816 SCRA 178, G.R. No. 207786 January 30, 2017, J. Caguioa

Secondary Evidence May Be Admitted if the Terms of a Writing are Not in Issue

The Best Evidence Rule (now, the Original Document Rule) applies only when the terms of a
writing are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns external facts, such as
the existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without reference to its terms, the Best
Evidence Rule cannot be invoked. In such a case, secondary evidence may be admitted even
without accounting for the original. Heirs of Margarita Prodon vs. Heirs of Maximo S. Alvarez
and Valentina Clave, 704 SCRA 465, G.R. No. 170604 September 2, 2013

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 13
 2022 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
EVIDENCE

Parol Evidence Rule Requires No Evidence Other Than the Contents of the Written Agreement

It is elementary that when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be no evidence on such terms
other than the contents of the written agreement. Further, when the terms of the contract are
clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the stipulations of the
parties are controlling. Industrial Personnel and Management Services, Inc. vs. Country Bankers
Insurance Corporation, 883 SCRA 404, G.R. No. 194126 October 17, 2018, J. Caguioa

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

Discovery Procedure Cannot Be Used to Access Evidence that is Otherwise Inadmissible

The right to compel the production of documents has a limitation: the documents to be disclosed
are “not privileged.” Josielene of course claims that the hospital records subject of this case are
not privileged since it is the “testimonial” evidence of the physician that may be regarded as
privileged. Section 24(c) of Rule 130 states that the physician “cannot in a civil case, without the
consent of the patient, be examined” regarding their professional conversation. The privilege,
says Josielene, does not cover the hospital records, but only the examination of the physician at
the trial. To allow, however, the disclosure during discovery procedure of the hospital records —
the results of tests that the physician ordered, the diagnosis of the patient’s illness, and the
advice or treatment he gave him — would be to allow access to evidence that is inadmissible
without the patient’s consent. Physician memorializes all these information in the patient’s
records. Disclosing them would be the equivalent of compelling the physician to testify on
privileged matters he gained while dealing with the patient, without the latter’s prior consent.
Chan vs. Chan, 702 SCRA 76, G.R. No. 179786 July 24, 2013

The Right Against Self-Incrimination is Only a Right Against Testimonial Compulsion

The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right
against self-incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the
accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not
an incrimination but as part of object evidence. Over the years, we have expressly excluded
several kinds of object evidence taken from the person of the accused from the realm of self-
incrimination. These include photographs, hair, and other bodily substances. We have also
declared as constitutional several procedures performed on the accused such as pregnancy tests
for women accused of adultery, expulsion of morphine from one’s mouth and the tracing of one’s

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 13
 2022 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
EVIDENCE

foot to determine its identity with bloody footprints. In Jimenez v. Cañizares , we even authorized
the examination of a woman’s genitalia, in an action for annulment filed by her husband, to verify
his claim that she was impotent, her orifice being too small for his penis. Some of these
procedures were, to be sure, rather invasive and involuntary, but all of them were
constitutionally sound. DNA testing and its results, per our ruling in Yatar, are now similarly
acceptable. Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, 460 SCRA 315, G.R. No. 162571 June 15, 2005

Silence Can Be Taken as Adoptive Admission to the Statement or Action by Another

An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is

reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the
other person. Jones explains that the “basis for admissibility of admissions made vicariously is
that arising from the ratification or adoption by the party of the statements which the other
person had made.” To use the blunt language of Mueller and Kirkpatrick, “this process of
attribution is not mumbo jumbo but common sense.” In the Angara Diary, the options of the
petitioner started to dwindle when the armed forces withdrew its support from him as President
and commander-in-chief. Thus, Executive Secretary Angara had to ask Senate President Pimentel
to advise petitioner to consider the option of “dignified exit or resignation.” Petitioner did not
object to the suggested option but simply said he could never leave the country. Petitioner’s
silence on this and other related suggestions can be taken as an admission by him. Estrada vs.
Desierto, 356 SCRA 108, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, G.R. No. 146738 April 3, 2001

Hearsay Evidence as Part of the Res Gestae is Admissible in Courts

It is well-entrenched that a witness may only testify on facts derived from his own perception
and not on what he has merely learned or heard from others. Hearsay evidence, or those derived
outside of a witness’ personal knowledge, are generally inadmissible due to serious concerns on
their trustworthiness and reliability; such evidence, by their nature, are not given under oath or
solemn affirmation and likewise have not undergone the benefit of cross-examination to test the
reliability of the out-of-court declarant on which the relative weight of the out-of-court
statement depends. Hence, as a general rule, hearsay evidence is inadmissible in courts of law.
As an exception, however, Section 42 (now, Section 44) of Rule 130 allows the admission of
hearsay evidence as part of the res gestae. The following requisites must, thus, be satisfied for
the exception to apply: (i) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (ii) that
the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood;
and (iii) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate
attending circumstances. People vs. XXX, 878 SCRA 296, G.R. No. 205888 August 22, 2018,
J. Caguioa

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 13
 2022 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
EVIDENCE

A Dying Declaration is Admissible as Evidence as an Exception to the Hearsay Rule

As an exception to the hearsay rule, a dying declaration is admissible as evidence because it is

“evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of his
impending death would make a careless and false accusation.” Accordingly, Section 37 (now,
Section 38), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides: —The declaration of a dying person, made
under the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death
is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
For a “dying declaration” to be admissible in court, the following requisites must concur: (a) That
the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death;
(b) That at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of an
impending death; (c) That the declarant is competent as a witness; and (d) That the declaration
is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is the
victim. People vs. Mercado, 883 SCRA 527, G.R. No. 218702 October 17, 2018, J. Caguioa

Immediate Death is Not Indispensable for a Dying Declaration to be Admissible

The fact that the victim did not expire right after his declaration, but survived seven (7) days
thereafter, will not alter the probative force of his dying declaration. The occurrence of a
declarant’s death immediately thereafter is not indispensable. The rule on dying declarations
does not require that the person “should be at the time in the throes of death, or that he should
die immediately, or within any specified time thereafter,” in order to give the declaration
probative force. People vs. Mendoza, 369 SCRA 268, G.R. No. 142654 November 16, 2001

Previous Conduct Can Only Be Offered to Show the Scheme of the Offender

As a rule, evidence is not admissible which shows or tends to show, that the accused in a criminal
case has committed a crime wholly independent of the offense for which he is on trial. It is not
competent to prove that he committed other crimes of a like nature for the purpose of showing
that he committed the crime charged in the complaint or information. An exception to this rule
is when such evidence tends directly to establish the particular crime, and it is usually competent
to prove the motive, the intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan
embracing the commission of two (2) or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one
tends to establish the other, or the identity of the person charged with the commission of the
crime on trial. People vs. Magpayo, 226 SCRA 13, G.R. Nos. 92961-64 September 1, 1993

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 13
 2022 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
EVIDENCE

Objection to Evidence Cannot Be Raised for the First Time on Appeal

As to Guro’s allegation that the illumination and condition of visibility on the area, the distance
of the eyewitnesses to the victim, and the suddenness of the attack, as well as the immediate
flight of the assailant, cast doubt on the alleged positive identification of witnesses, it must be
stressed that these circumstances were raised for the first time on appeal. Guro had all the
opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses as to these circumstances during trial,
but this he did not do. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when
a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an
objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.
People vs. Guro, 901 SCRA 475, G.R. No. 230619 April 10, 2019, J. Caguioa

BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

Presumption of Innocence Prevails Over Presumption of Regularity of Performance of Duty

The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a constitutionally
protected right. The burden lies with the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
by establishing each and every element of the crime charged. Judicial reliance on the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty despite the lapses in the procedures
undertaken by the agents of the law is fundamentally unsound because the lapses themselves
are affirmative proofs of irregularity. Any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be
justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated contraband.
Absent any of the said conditions, the non-compliance is an irregularity, a red flag that casts
reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti. The presumption of regularity cannot
overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule
of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent. People vs.
Callejo, 865 SCRA 405, G.R. No. 227427 June 6, 2018, J. Caguioa

PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

Authentication of a Private Document is Required Before It Could Be Presented as Evidence

According to Section 20, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence before any private document
offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved
either by (a) anyone who saw the document executed or written or (b) by evidence of the
genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. In the instant case, it is readily

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 13
 2022 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
EVIDENCE

admitted that Repollo did not personally witness the execution of any of the documents he
identified. In fact, Repollo testified that these documents were merely turned over to him by his
mother. Nor was Repollo knowledgeable as to the genuineness of the signatures or handwritings
found in the documents. Truth be told, Repollo had no participation and knowledge whatsoever
as to the preparation, execution, and authenticity of the documents he identified. Otherwise
stated, Repollo was totally incompetent to present and testify on these documents. Hence,
without proper identification and authentication, the documentary evidence of CAMACOP
should not have been admitted into evidence by the RTC. Heir of Pastora T. Cardenas and
Eustaquio Cardenas vs. The Christian and Missionary Alliance Churches of the Philippines, Inc.,
898 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 222614 March 20, 2019, J. Caguioa

A Notarized Document is a Public Document and Enjoys the Presumption of Validity

The Court has previously held that a document evidencing a sale transaction, such as a deed of
sale, which is duly notarized is considered a public document and therefore enjoys the
presumption of validity as to its authenticity and due execution. Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court likewise state that public documents are prima facie evidence of the fact which gave rise
to their execution. Moreover, as held in Heirs of Santiago v. Heirs of Santiago, 404 SCRA 193
(2003), one’s assertion of ownership is further strengthened and buttressed by the fact of
possession, i.e., by building and occupying a house on the subject lot, coupled with the lack of
opposition of such possession on the part of the other parties. In the instant case, it is not
disputed that petitioner Logrosa possesses a portion of the subject property with no opposition
by the other parties, aside from respondents Sps. Azares, who disclaimed petitioner Logrosa’s
status as co-owner only after more than two (2) decades since the execution of the Deed of
Absolute Sale, and only as a mere reaction to the Complaint for Partition filed by petitioner
Logrosa. Logrosa vs. Azares, 899 SCRA 42, G.R. No. 217611 March 27, 2019, J. Caguioa

Courts Cannot Consider Evidence Which Was Not Formally Offered

In this case, even assuming that the Reply-Letter dated June 27, 2003 was appended to the
records, the fact still remains that the court cannot consider evidence which was not formally
offered. As such, any statement allegedly made on behalf of petitioner Mandagan in the said
letter could not be considered an admission of receipt of a notice of dishonor as the same has no
evidentiary value whatsoever. Verily, the RTC could not be faulted, much less accused of
capriciousness, in appreciating the evidence without the Reply-Letter dated June 27, 2003.
Mandagan vs. Jose M. Valero Corporation, 905 SCRA 152, G.R. No. 215118 June 19, 2019,
J. Caguioa

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 13
 2022 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
EVIDENCE

No Formal Offer is Necessary for Evidence Duly Recorded or Incorporated in the Records

In certain instances, however, this Court has relaxed the procedural rule and allowed the trial
court to consider evidence not formally offered on the condition that the following requisites are
present: (1) the evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded; and (2) the
same must have been incorporated in the records of the case. Heirs of Serapio Mabborang vs.
Mabborang, 757 SCRA 89, G.R. No. 182805 April 22, 2015

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

Judicial Affidavit Rule Does Not Apply to the Presentation of an Adverse Party’s Witness

Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule contemplates a situation where there is a (a) government
employee or official or (b) requested witness who is not the (1) adverse party’s witness nor (2) a
hostile witness. If this person either (a) unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or (b)
refuses without just cause to make the relevant documents available to the other party and its
presentation to court, Section 5 allows the requesting party to avail of issuance of subpoena ad
testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. Thus, adverse party witnesses
and hostile witnesses being excluded they are not covered by Section 5. Expressio unius est
exclusion alterius: the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the
exclusion of all others. Here, Yap is a requested witness who is the adverse party’s witness.
Regardless of whether he unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit or refuses without
just cause to present the documents, Section 5 cannot be made to apply to him for the reason
that he is included in a group of individuals expressly exempt from the provision’s application.
Ng Meng Tam vs. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 214054, August 5, 2015

WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

Defenses of Alibi and Denial May Be Inherently Weak But It Should Not Be Easily Dismissed

If found credible, the defenses of denial and alibi may, and should, be considered complete and
legitimate defenses. The burden of proof does not shift by the mere invocation of said defenses;
the presumption of innocence remains in favor of the accused. In alibi, the accused must prove
not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed, but that it was
likewise physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time thereof. Physical
impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime
transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 13
 2022 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
EVIDENCE

two places. In the instant case, the RTC and CA erred when they failed to appreciate that it was
physically impossible for Benie to commit the crime due to the distance between his
whereabouts and the place where the crime was committed. People vs. Mon, 886 SCRA 611, G.R.
No. 235778 November 21, 2018, J. Caguioa

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt is Not Absolute Certainty But Only Moral Certainty

The guilt of an accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Before he is convicted, there
should be moral certainty — a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience
of those who are to act upon it. Absolute guarantee of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict
a person of a criminal charge but there must, at least, be moral certainty on each element
essential to constitute the offense and on the responsibility of the offender. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is meant to be that, all things given, the mind of the judge can rest at ease
concerning its verdict. Again, these basic postulates assume that the court and others at the trial
are able to comprehend the testimony of witnesses, particularly of the victim herself if she is
presented and testified under oath. People vs. Bermas, 905 SCRA 455, G.R. No. 234947 June 19,
2019, J. Caguioa

In Civil Cases, Burden of Proof is on Plaintiff to Establish the Case by Preponderance of Evidence

Case law has defined “burden of proof” as the duty to establish the truth of a given proposition
or issue by such quantum of evidence as the law demands in the case at which the issue arises.
In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by preponderance of
evidence, i.e., superior weight of evidence on the issues involved. “Preponderance of evidence”
means evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in
opposition to it. Republic vs. De Borja, 814 SCRA 10, G.R. No. 187448 January 9, 2017, J. Caguioa

Substantial Evidence Suffices to Hold One Administratively Liable

While substantial evidence — which is more than a mere scintilla but is such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion — suffices to hold one
administratively liable, this does not authorize any finding to be made just as long as there is any
evidence to support it. It does not excuse administrative agencies from taking into account
countervailing evidence which fairly detracts from the evidence supporting a finding. Here, as
demonstrated by the Court, the evidence (or lack thereof) in support of the Ombudsman’s

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 13
 2022 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
EVIDENCE

findings failed to satisfy the quantum of evidence required. There is simply not enough evidence
to hold Ancheta liable for simple neglect of duty. Ancheta vs. Villa, 929 SCRA 116, G.R. No.
229634 January 15, 2020, J. Caguioa

Circumstantial Evidence May Be Presented to Convict the Accused

Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not indispensable to criminal prosecutions; a

contrary rule would render convictions virtually impossible given that most crimes, by their very
nature, are purposely committed in seclusion and away from eyewitnesses. Thus, our rules on
evidence and jurisprudence allow the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence
alone, provided that the following requisites concur: (i) there is more than one circumstance; (ii)
the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (iii) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. People vs.
Pentecostes, 844 SCRA 610, G.R. No. 226158 November 8, 2017, J. Caguioa

RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

An Electronic Document is Admissible if It Complies with the Rules on Admissibility

For the Court to consider an electronic document as evidence, it must pass the test of
admissibility. According to Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, “[a]n electronic
document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the
Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules.”
Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence lays down the authentication process of electronic
documents. Section 2 of Rule 5 sets forth the required proof of authentication: —Before any
private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be
proved by any of the following means: (a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the
person purported to have signed the same; (b) by evidence that other appropriate security
procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication
of electronic documents were applied to the document; or (c) by other evidence showing its
integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge. RCBC Bankard Services Corporation vs.
Oracion, Jr., 905 SCRA 219, G.R. No. 223274 June 19, 2019, J. Caguioa

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 12 of 13
 2022 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 6
EVIDENCE

Business Records Require Authentication by Custodian or Other Qualified Witness

Even the section on “Business Records as Exception to the Hearsay Rule” of Rule 8 of the Rules
on Electronic Evidence requires authentication by the custodian or other qualified witness. In the
absence of such authentication through the affidavit of the custodian or other qualified person,
the said annexes or attachments cannot be admitted and appreciated as business records and
excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence. Consequently, the annexes to the complaint fall
within the Rule on Hearsay Evidence and are to be excluded pursuant to Section 36 (now, Section
37), Rule 130 of the Rules. RCBC Bankard Services Corporation vs. Oracion, Jr., 905 SCRA 219,
G.R. No. 223274 June 19, 2019, J. Caguioa

An Electronic Document is Regarded as the Functional Equivalent of the Original

Section 4, Rule 130 of the Rules and Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence identify
the following instances when copies of a document are equally regarded as originals: [1] When a
document is in two (2) or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals. [2] When an entry is repeated in the
regular course of business, one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction,
all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. [3] When a document is in two (2) or
more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart
produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or
electronic rerecording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which
accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent
of the original. Apparently, “duplicate original copies” or “multiple original copies” wherein two
(2) or more copies are executed at or about the same time with identical contents are
contemplated in 1 and 3 above. If the copy is generated after the original is executed, it may be
called a “print-out or output” based on the definition of an electronic document, or a
“counterpart” based on Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. RCBC Bankard
Services Corporation vs. Oracion, Jr., 905 SCRA 219, G.R. No. 223274 June 19, 2019, J. Caguioa

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 13 of 13