I.

Preliminary Considerations

• A. Definition of Terms
o 1. Evidence: The means sanctioned by the rules, of ascertaining the truth in a judicial
proceeding regarding a matter of fact.
▪ Note: Evidence is crucial for establishing facts in court.
o 2. Factum Probandum: The ultimate fact or facts sought to be established.
▪ Note: This is what you're trying to prove.
o 3. Factum Probans: The evidentiary fact or facts by which factum probandum is to be
established.
▪ Note: These are the pieces of evidence used to prove the ultimate fact.
o 4. Object or Real Evidence: Evidence directly addressed to the senses of the court,
consisting of tangible things exhibited, viewed, or demonstrated in open court.
▪ Note: This is physical evidence.
o 5. Documentary Evidence: Evidence consisting of writings, recordings, photographs, or
any material containing words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent,
offered as proof of their contents.
o 6. Electronic Document or Electronic Data Message: Information or representation of
information, data, figures, symbols, or other modes of written expression, described or
however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by
which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
processed, retrieved, or produced electronically. Includes digitally signed documents and any
print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic
data message or electronic document.
o 7. Testimonial Evidence: Oral evidence given by the witness on the witness stand or in
any proceeding. Also known as "Viva Voce Evidence" or "Evidence of the Living Voice".
o 8. Direct Evidence: Evidence that, if believed, proves the fact in issue.
▪ Note: Directly proves a key fact.
o 9. Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence that proves a fact or series of facts from which the
facts in issue may be established by inference.
▪ Case Law: Nover Bryan Salvador Y De Leon vs. People of the Philippines
▪ Note: Establishes facts from which inferences can be made.
o 10. Demonstrative Evidence: Evidence that demonstrates the real thing.
o 11. Corroborative Evidence: Evidence that merely supplements evidence already given,
tending to strengthen it.
▪ Note: Bolsters existing evidence.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Joemarie Jalbonian alias "Budo"
▪ Note: Necessary only when there are suspicions of witness falsification or inaccurate
observation.
o 12. Cumulative Evidence: Evidence of the same kind and character, tending to prove the
same proposition.
o 13. Positive Evidence (Testimony): Evidence in which a witness affirms that a fact did or
did not occur.
▪ Case Law: People vs. Alfonso
o 14. Negative Evidence: Evidence/testimony to prove that a certain fact did not exist.
▪ Note: Denial and alibi are forms of negative evidence.
o 15. Prima Facie Evidence: Evidence that, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to
sustain the proposition it supports or to establish the facts.
▪ Note: Sufficient unless disproved or rebutted.
▪ Case Law: Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan
o 16. Conclusive Evidence: Evidence that establishes the fact.
▪ Case Law: US vs. Pons

1
o 17. Substantial Evidence: The quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in
administrative and quasi-judicial agencies, or that level of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
▪ Case Law: Avelino F. Sagun vs. Sun Ace International Management Services Inc.
o 18. Preponderance of Evidence: The weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence
on either side; synonymous with "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the
credible evidence". It means probability of the truth and is more convincing to the court.
▪ Note: About probability and convincing the court.
▪ Case Law: Tomas Tan vs. Jose Hosana; Cavile vs. Litania-Hong.
o 19. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The required quantum of evidence to convict an
accused. Judgment of conviction must rest on moral certainty.
▪ Note: Highest standard of proof in criminal cases.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Rubio
o 20. Clear and Convincing Evidence: Evidence that establishes in the minds of a trier of
facts a firm belief on the existence of the fact in issue.
o 21. Competent Evidence: Evidence not otherwise excluded by law or by the rules.
o 22. Incompetent Evidence: Evidence excluded by law or by the rules.
o 23. Relevant Evidence: Evidence that has a relation to the fact in issue.
o 24. Material Evidence: Evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by
substantive law and pleadings.
▪ Case Law: Bautista vs. Aparece
o 25. Rebuttal Evidence: Evidence to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove adversary's
proof. Receivable only where new matters have been developed.
▪ Case Law: Ago Timber Corporation vs. Abaya
o 26. Sur-Rebuttal Evidence: Evidence in reply to or to rebut new matter introduced in
rebuttal.
▪ Case Law: Sandakan vs. Sero
o 27. Primary Evidence: Evidence that assures the greatest certainty of the fact sought to be
proved and does not indicate the existence of other and better proof.
▪ Case Law: Delta Motors Sales Corporation vs. Bernardo
o 28. Secondary Evidence: Any evidence other than the document itself, such as a copy,
recital of its contents in some authentic document, or recollection of the witness.
o 29. Evidence-in-Chief: The primary and main evidence presented by the parties to prove
their cause or defense.
o 30. Newly Discovered Evidence: Evidence that could not have been discovered before
the trial in the court below with the exercise of due diligence.
o 31. Biological Sample: Any organic material originating from a person's body, even if
found in inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. Includes blood, saliva, other
body fluids, tissues, hairs, and bones.
o 32. Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA): The chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell
of the body. The totality of an individual's DNA is unique, except for identical twins.
o 33. DNA Evidence: The totality of the DNA profiles, results, and other genetic
information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples.
o 34. DNA Profile: Genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample
obtained from a person, which biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from
that person.
o 35. DNA Testing: Verified and validated analytical and scientific methods which include
the extraction of DNA from biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles, and the
comparison of the information obtained from the DNA testing of biological samples for the
purpose of determining, with reasonable certainty, whether or not the DNA obtained from
two or more distinct biological samples originates from the same person (direct
identification) or if the biological samples originate from related persons (kinship analysis).

2
o 36. DNA Analysis: A procedure in which DNA extracted from a biological sample
obtained from an individual is examined.
o 37. Probability of Parentage: The numerical estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a
putative parent compared with the probability of a random match of two unrelated
individuals in a given population.
o 38. Ephemeral Electronic Communication: Telephone conversations, text messages,
chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.
o 39. Electronic Signature: Any distinctive mark, characteristic, and/or sound in electronic
form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the
electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed
or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of
authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document.
o 40. Digital Signature: An electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an
electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public
cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic document and
the signer's public key can accurately determine.
o 41. Judicial Notice: The cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act
on without proof because they already know them.
▪ Note: May be mandatory or discretionary.
▪ Case Law: Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Commission on Customs
o 42. Judicial Admission: An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of
the proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with the need for proof with respect to
the matter or fact admitted.
o 43. Testimonial Privilege: A privilege which consists in excusing the witness, having
attended the court, when part of his testimony is desired, from disclosing a certain part of his
knowledge.
▪ Case Law: Fyt for a Queen Agency Inc. vs. Rarro
o 44. Admission: The act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against him.
o 45. Confession: An acknowledgment of one's guilt or liability.
o 46. Self-Serving Declaration: A statement made extrajudicially by a party to favor his
interest; inadmissible in evidence.
o 47. Self-Serving Testimony: Refers to the extrajudicial statement of a party which is being
urged for admission in court.
o 48. Offer of Compromise: An offer to settle a dispute or difference amicably for the
purpose of avoiding a lawsuit and without admitting liability.
▪ Case Law: Black's Law Dictionary
o 49. Conspiracy: The combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for
the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act.
▪ Case Law: Black's Law Dictionary
o 50. Dying Declaration: An ante-mortem statement which refers to the cause and
surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death, made under the belief of an impending
death.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Lugtu
o 51. Pedigree: Lineage, descent, and succession of families; line of ancestors from which a
person descends; genealogy.
▪ Case Law: Black's Law Dictionary
o 52. Family Reputation: What is commonly said and understood to be true among the
immediate relatives and family connections of the party to whom the inquiry relates, as to
questions of genealogy and generally as to questions relating to birth, marriages, and deaths.

3
o 53. Tradition: The knowledge, belief, or practices, transmitted orally from father to son, or
from ancestor to posterity.
o 54. Common Reputation: The general or undivided reputation.
o 55. Res Gestae: Statements, otherwise inadmissible in evidence because they are hearsay,
which are incidental to the act, transaction, or occurrence in question and are admissible as
part of the res gestae.
▪ Case Law: Topa vs. Paredes
o 56. Opinion: An informal expression of what the witness thinks, believes, or infers in
regards to a fact in dispute.
o 57. Character Evidence: Evidence of a person's moral standing in the community based on
reputation.
o 58. Presumption: The logical inference of the truth or falsity at a point in dispute.
o 59. Presumption of Law: An inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known,
arising from its usual connection with another which is known.
o 60. Presumption of Fact or Hominis: A deduction which reason draws from facts proved
without an express direction to that effect.
o 61. Conclusive Presumption: Presumptions which always hold as true and cannot be
overcome by evidence to the contrary.
o 62. Disputable Presumptions: Presumptions of law which always hold true only as long as
they are not overcome by competent evidence to the contrary.
o 63. Direct Examination: The examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him
on the facts relevant to the issue.
o 64. Credibility of the Witness: Refers only to his integrity and to the fact that he is worthy
of belief.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Rivera
o 65. Credibility of Testimony: Refers to the believability or the truthfulness of the
statements or testimony.
o 66. Trial: A judicial process of investigating and determining legal controversies with the
production of evidence by the plaintiff and ending with his closing arguments.
▪ Case Law: Acosta vs. People of the Philippines
o 67. Trial on the Merits: Trial of substantive issue in a case.
▪ Case Law: Black's Law Dictionary
o 68. Inverted Trial: A kind of trial in which the accused admitted the crime but interposes
an exculpatory defense, and the burden of jurisdiction is now on him and he will be the first
to present evidence.
o 69. Trial in Absentia: A kind of trial conducted after the accused has been arraigned and he
was duly notified of the trial and his failure to appear thereat is unjustified.
o 70. New Trial or Trial de Novo: An application for a relief requesting that the judge set
aside the judgment and order a new trial on the basis that the trial was improper.
o 73. Joint or Consolidated Trial: When actions involving a common question of law or fact
are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in
issue in the actions.
▪ Note: Aims to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
o 74. Separate Trial: The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, may
order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of
any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party
complaints, or issue.
o 75. Trial by Commissioner: By written consent of both parties, the court may order any or
all of the issues in a case to be referred to a commissioner to be agreed upon by the parties
or to be appointed by the court.
o 76. Impartial Trial: A trial conducted by a disinterested judge without favoring any party.

4
o 77. Alternate Trial: One where parties take turns presenting their witnesses respecting the
first factual issue or related issues stated in the order of trial.
o 78. Face-to-Face Trial: One wherein witnesses from the contending sides appear together
before the court, sit face-to-face around a table in a non-adversarial environment, and
answer questions from the court as well as the parties' counsels respecting the factual issue
under consideration.
o 79. Examination of the Witness: The elicitation of information in a court by question and
answer of witness.
o 80. Affirmative Testimony: The testimony of a witness that he saw or heard or did a
particular thing at a particular time and place.
▪ Case Law: Subingsubing vs. Cebu Velez General Hospital
o 81. Expert Testimony: Testimony of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge,
skill, experience, or training which he is shown to possess, which may be received in
evidence.
o 82. Negative Testimony: Testimony of one present that he did not see or hear that which
is claimed to have occurred.
▪ Case Law: Eisma vs. Ocampo
o 83. Positive Testimony: Testimony of one present that he did see or hear that which is
claimed to have occurred.
▪ Case Law: Eisma vs. Ocampo
o 84. False Testimony: A false declaration under oath against a person knowing it to be false
which may result to conviction, acquittal, or liability.
o 85. Self-Serving Testimony: An extrajudicial statement of a party, favorable to him, which
is being urged for admission to court during the trial of the case.
▪ Case Law: Somaco us. Angelo
o 86. Hearsay Testimony: Testimony offered against a party who had no opportunity to
examine the witness.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines us. Caballero
o 87. Witness: A person called in a judicial or similar proceeding to give testimony under oath.
o 88. Competent Witness: A witness who is not legally disqualified from testifying in courts
of justice.
o 89. Incompetent Witness: A witness who is disqualified from testifying in courts of justice.
o 90. Biased Witness: A witness who tends to exaggerate.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Coderes
o 91. Character Witness: A witness who testifies, being a Filipino, that he personally knows
the petitioner to possess the residence requirement, good reputation, integrity, qualifications
and none of the disqualifications to be a citizen of the Philippines.
▪ Case Law: Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals
o 92. Credible Witness: One whose testimony is worthy of credit and belief.
▪ Case Law: Lee vs. Secretary of Labor
o 93. Honest Witness: A witness who gives truthful testimony.
o 94. Dishonest Witness: A witness who professes to remember things upon which he
cannot readily contradict and who declares that he forgets those upon he would be open to
contradiction.
o 95. Instrumental Witness: A witness who does not merely attest to the signature of the
testator, but also to the proper execution of the will.
▪ Case Law: Cuevas vs. Achacoso
o 96. Plausible Witness: A witness who recreates the emotion at the time of the original
incident.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Valdemoro
o 97. State Witness: An accomplice who gives evidence in criminal proceeding, usually in the
expectancy of lighter punishment or pardon.

5
o 99. Expert Witness: A person who by study or experience has acquired particular
knowledge or experience upon matters of technical knowledge and skill relating to a specific
business or employment.
▪ Case Law: Dilag & Co. vs. Merced
o 100. Hostile or Adverse Witness: A witness who manifests so much hostility or prejudice
under examination in chief that the party who has called him, or representative, is allowed to
cross-examine him.
▪ Case Law: Black's Law Dictionary
o 101. Qualified Witness: A witness who can perceive, perceiving; and can make known their
perception to others, and possess all the qualification and none of the disqualification.
o 102. Disqualified Witness: A witness who is excluded by law or the rules to give testimony.
o 103. Leading Question: A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the
examining party desires.
o 104. Misleading Question: A question which assumes a fact not yet testified to by the
witness or contrary to his previous testimony.
o 105. Harmless Question: A question which is of small importance or has no relation to the
fact in issue.
o 106. Open Question: A question which allows a witness to answer the way he wants to.
o 107. Trick Question: A question which leaves the witness in a no win situation.
o 108. Undeniable Question: A question that the cross-examiner can ask of the witness the
answer which the latter cannot deny.
o 109. Direct Examination: The examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting
him on the facts relevant to the issue.
o 110. Contradictory Evidence: Refers to other testimony of the same witness, or other
evidence presented by him in the same case, but not the testimony of another witness.
o 111. Prior Inconsistent Statement: Refers to statements, oral or documentary made by the
witness sought to be impeached on occasion other than the trial in which he is testifying.
o 112. Private Document: Any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private
person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which
some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth.
o 113. Extrinsic Fraud: Refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation
which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the unsuccessful party has been
prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his
opponent.
▪ Case Law: Philippine Tourism Authority vs. Philippine Golf Development & Equipment, Inc.
o 114. Offer of Evidence: Presentation or introduction of evidence. A document or article is
not evidence when it is simply marked for identification; it must be formally offered as
evidence.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Whipkey
o 115. Objection: An argument or reasons presented against an act of the adverse party or his
counsel, or against the determination by the court in the course of the trial.
o 116. Weight of Evidence: The balance or preponderance of evidence; the inclination of the
greater amount of credible evidence offered in a trial to support one side of the issue rather
than the other.
▪ Case Law: Black's Law Dictionary
o 117. Sufficiency of Evidence: The concept that the evidence submitted may have its own
probative value but in the appreciation thereof proper degrees are considered by the court.
▪ Case Law: A"oyo vs. El Beaterio
o 118. Extra Judicial Confession: A declaration made at any time by a person, voluntarily,
and without compulsion or inducement, stating or acknowledging that he has committed or
participated in the commission of a crime.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Mojica

6
 o 119. Corpus Delicti: Refers to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the
body or substance of the crime.

• B. Doctrines, Rules, and Principles

o 1. One Day One Witness Rule: Examination of the witness must be terminated within one
(1) day, inclusive of direct, cross, redirect, and re-cross examinations, unless the court will
allow otherwise.
o 2. Most Important Witness Rule: During pre-trial conference, the judge has the discretion
to determine who are the most important witnesses to be presented in the trial in order to
limit corroborative testimonies.
o 3. Viatory Rights of the Witness Rule: A witness who resides one hundred (100)
kilometers away from the trial court where he is to travel in the ordinary course of travel, or
he is a detention prisoner and no permission is obtained from the court in which the case is
pending, then he cannot be compelled to comply with the subpoena or attend the trial.
o 4. Equipose or Equiponderance of Evidence Rule: When the circumstances are capable
of two or more inferences, one of which is consistent with innocence and the other is
compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail, and the court must acquit.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Montilla; Manalili vs. CA
o 6. Doctrine of Relaxed Admissibility of Evidence: In Amparo cases, evidence is not to
be rejected outright because it is inadmissible under the rules for as long as it satisfies "the
most basic test of reason - i.e., relevance of the evidence".
▪ Case Law: In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor of
Lilibeth Ladaga vs. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu
o 7. Original Document Rule: When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document,
writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original document itself.
o 8. Parol Evidence Rule: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it
is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties
and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the
written agreement.
o 9. Rule on Falsa Demonstration Non Nocet: Where there are two (2) descriptions in a
deed, the one as it were, super added to the other, and one description being complete and
sufficient in itself, and the other which is subordinate and super added is incorrect, the
incorrect description or feature or circumstance of the description is rejected as a surplusage,
and the complete and correct description is allowed to stand alone.
▪ Case Law: Myers vs. Ladd
o 10. Doctrine of "presumed-identity approach" or "processual presumption": Where a
foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign
law is the same as ours.
▪ Case Law: ATCI Overseas Corporation, Amalia G. Ikdal and Ministry of Public Health
•Kuwait vs. Ma. Josefa Echin
o 11. Assumption of Truth Rule: When a motion to dismiss is filed, the material allegations
of the complaint are deemed to be hypothetically admitted.
▪ Case Law: The Municipality of Hagonoy Bulacan, et al. vs. Hon. Simeon Dumdum, Jr.
o 12. Chain of Custody Rule: The duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/ confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court.
o 13. Res Inter Alios Acta Rule: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.

7
o 14. Principle of Interlocking Confession: Extrajudicial confessions made independently
without collusion, which are identical with each other in their material respects and
confirmatory of the other are admissible as circumstantial evidence against their co-accused.
o 15. Plain View Doctrine: Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view"
of an officer, who has a right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure
and may be presented as evidence.
▪ Case Law: Elenita C. Fajardo vs. People of the Philippines
o 16. Hypothetical Admission Rule: A motion to quash the information is the mode by
which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or information filed against him
for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of
the information.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo V. Odtuhan
o 17. Doctrine of Parental Privilege: No person may be compelled to testify against his
parents.
o 18. Doctrine of Filial Privilege: No person may be compelled to testify against his other
direct ascendants children or other direct descendants.
o 19. Principle of Spousal Immunity: During their marriage, neither the husband nor the
wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse.
o 20. Dead Man's Statute Rule or Survivorship Disqualification Rule: Parties or assignor
of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or
administrator or other representative of a deceased person or against a person of unsound
mind, upon a claim or.
o 22. Attorney-Client Privileged Communication Rule: An attorney or person reasonably
believed by the client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law cannot, without the
consent of the client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or
her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to professional
employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk or other persons
assisting the attorney be examined without the consent of the client and his or her employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity.
o 23. Doctor-Patient Privileged Communication Rule: A physician, psychotherapist or
person reasonably believed by the patient to be authorized to practice medicine or
psychotherapy cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to
any confidential communication made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the
patient's physical, mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction,
between the patient and his or her physician or psychotherapist.
o 24. Priest-Penitent Privileged Communication Rule: A minister, priest or person
reasonably believed to be so cannot, without the consent of the affected person, be
examined as to any communication or confession made to or any advice given by him or
her, in his or her professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to
which the minister or priest belongs.
o 25. State Secrets Privileged Communication Rule: A public officer cannot be examined
during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
o 27. Deliberative Process Privilege Information Rule: Deliberative process privilege is
one kind of privileged information, which is within the exceptions of the constitutional right
to information.
▪ Case Law: Department of Foreign Affairs vs. BCA International Corporation
o 28. Good Samaritan Rule: An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital, or other
expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal
liability for the injury.

8
o 29. Rule on Admission by a Third Party/Res Inter Alios Acta Rule: The rights of a
party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided.
o 30. First Hand Knowledge Rule: The rule states that, a witness can testify only to those
facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own
perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
o 31. Hearsay Evidence/Statement Rule: Hearsay is a statement other than one made by
the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts
asserted therein.
o 32. Principle of Independent Relevant Statement: It is a statement which is relevant to
the fact in issue independently of whether they are true or not.
o 33. Principle of Res Gestae: Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Gilberto Villarico, et al
o 34. Opinion Rule: The rule is that the opinion of witness is not admissible, except as
indicated in the following sections.
o 35. Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony: When cross-examination is not and cannot be
done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered the witness, the
uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incompetent and should be stricken from the
record.
▪ Case Law: Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., et al. vs. CIR, et al.; Ortigas, Jr. vs. Lufthansa German
Airlines
o 36. Revival of Present Memory Rule: A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory
regarding a fact by referring to something written or recorded.

9
CHAPTER I: PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION

I. DEFINITION OF TERMS

• Evidence: The means sanctioned by the rules, of ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact in
a judicial proceeding.
• Factum Probandum: The ultimate fact or facts sought to be established.
• Factum Probans: The evidentiary fact or facts by which factum probandum is to be established.
• Object or Real Evidence: Evidence directly addressed to the senses of the court, consisting of
tangible things exhibited, viewed, or demonstrated in open court.
• Documentary Evidence: Evidence consisting of writings, recordings, photographs, or any material
containing words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalents, offered as proof of their
contents.
• Electronic Document or Electronic Data Message: Information or the representation of
information, data, figures, symbols, or other modes of written expression, described or however
represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be
proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved, or
produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable
by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic
document.
• Testimonial Evidence ("Viva Voce" Evidence or "Evidence of the Living Voice"): Oral
evidence given by the witness on the witness stand or in any proceeding.
• Direct Evidence: Evidence that, if believed, proves the fact in issue.
• Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence that proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in
issue may be established by inference.
o Nover Bryan Salvador Y De Leon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164266, July 23, 2008
• Demonstrative Evidence: Evidence that demonstrates the real thing.
• Corroborative Evidence: Evidence that supplements evidence already given, tending to strengthen
the same.
• Cumulative Evidence: Evidence of the same kind and character tending to prove the same
proposition.
• Positive Evidence/Testimony: Evidence in which a witness affirms that a fact did or did not
occur.
o (People vs. Alfonso, 16147 CR, February 1, 1978)
• Negative Evidence: Evidence/testimony to prove that a certain fact did not exist.
• Prima Facie Evidence: Evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain
the proposition it supports or to establish the facts; sufficient to establish a fact or raise a
presumption unless disproved or rebutted.
o (Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan [First Division], G. R. No. 166859, April 12, 2011)
• Conclusive Evidence: Evidence that establishes the fact.
o (US vs. Pons, 34 Phil. 733)
• Substantial Evidence: The quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in proceedings before
administrative and quasi-judicial agencies; that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
o (Avelino F. Sagun vs. Sun Ace International Management Services Inc., G.R. No. 179242, February 23,
2011)
• Preponderance of Evidence: The weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side;
synonymous with "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence";
means probability of the truth; evidence that is more convincing to the court as it is worthier of
belief than that which is offered in opposition.
o (Tomas Tan vs. Jose Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, February 3, 2016)

10
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The required quantum of evidence to convict an accused; a
judgment of conviction must rest on nothing less than moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind that
it was the accused who committed the crime.
o (People of the Philippines vs. Rubio, G.R. No. 179748, October 2, 2009)
• Clear and Convincing Evidence: Evidence that establishes in the minds of a trier of facts a firm
belief on the existence of the fact in issue.
• Competent Evidence: Evidence that is not otherwise excluded by law or by the rules.
o (Sec. 3, Rule 128)
• Incompetent Evidence: Evidence that is excluded by law or by the rules.
• Relevant Evidence: Evidence having a relation to the fact in issue.
o (Sec. 3, Rule 128)
• Material Evidence: Evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules on
substantive law and pleadings.
o (Bautista vs. Aparece, 51 00 808)
• Rebuttal Evidence: Evidence to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove an adversary's proof;
receivable only where new matters have been developed by the evidence of one of the parties and is
generally limited to a reply to new matters.
o (Ago Timber Corporation vs. Abaya, 07296-SP, July 31, 1978)
• Sur-Rebuttal Evidence: Evidence in reply to or to rebut new matter introduced in rebuttal.
o (Sandakan vs. Sero, 29947-R, January 22, 1964)
• Primary Evidence: Evidence that assures the greatest certainty of the fact sought to be proved, and
which does not in itself indicate the existence of other and better proof.
o (Delta Motors Sales Corporation vs. Bernardo, 66261-R, May 21, 1981)
• Secondary Evidence: Any evidence other than the document itself, such as a copy; recital of its
contents in some authentic document; or recollection of the witness.
o (Sec. 4, Rule 130)
• Evidence-in-Chief: The primary and main evidence presented by the parties to prove their cause or
defense.
• Newly Discovered Evidence: Evidence that could not have been discovered with due diligence
before the trial in the court below.
• Biological Sample: Any organic material originating from a person's body, even if found in
inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing; includes blood, saliva, other body fluids,
tissues, hairs, and bones.
• Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA): The chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body;
the totality of an individual's DNA is unique for the individual, except for identical twins.
• DNA Evidence: The totality of the DNA profiles, results, and other genetic information directly
generated from DNA testing of biological samples.
• DNA Profile: Genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from
a person, which biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person.
• DNA Testing: Verified and accepted scientific methods which include the extraction of DNA from
biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles, and the comparison of the information obtained
from the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining, with reasonable
certainty, whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originates
from the same person (direct identification) or if the biological samples originate from related
persons (kinship analysis).
• DNA Analysis: A procedure in which DNA extracted from a biological sample obtained from an
individual is examined to generate a DNA profile.
o (Rosendo Herrera vs. Rosendo Alba, minor, represented by his mother Armi A. Alba, and Hon. Nimfa
Cuesta-Vilches, Presiding Judge, Branch 48, Regional Trial Court, Manila, G.R. No. 148220, June 15,
2005)

11
• Probability of Parentage: The numerical estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a putative
parent compared with the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals in a given
population.
• Ephemeral Electronic Communication: Telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom
sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the
evidence of which is not recorded or retained.
o (Sec. 1[k], Rule 2 of the Electronic Document Rule -A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)
• Electronic Signature: Any distinctive mark, characteristic, and/or sound in electronic form,
representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data
message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person
and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or approving an
electronic data message or electronic document.
• Digital Signature: An electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document
or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having
the initial untransformed electronic document and the signer's public key can accurately determine.
• Judicial Notice: The cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without
proof because they already know them; may be mandatory or discretionary.
o (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Commission on Customs, G.R. No. 195876, December 5,
2016)
• Judicial Admission: An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with the need for proof with respect to the matter or
fact admitted.
• Testimonial Privilege: A privilege which consists in excusing the witness, having attended the court
and being exempting the witness, having attended the court and being examined, whose testimony is
desired, from disclosing a certain fact, his knowledge.
o (FY.t for a Queen Agency Inc. vs. Ramil SP-06511-November 1977)
• Admission: The act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact that may be given in
evidence against him.
• Confession: An acknowledgment of one's guilt or liability.
• Self-Serving Declaration: A statement made extrajudicially by a party to favor his interest;
inadmissible in evidence.
• Self-Serving Testimony: An extrajudicial statement of a party which is being urged for admission in
court.
• Offer of Compromise: An offer to settle a dispute or difference amicably for the purpose of
avoiding a lawsuit and without admitting liability.
o (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 561)
• Conspiracy: The combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose
of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in
itself but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the
purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself lawful.
o (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 182)
• Dying Declaration: An ante-mortem statement which refers to the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant's death, made under the consciousness of an impending death.
o (People of the Philippines vs. Lugtu L-52237, September 30, 1981, 108 SCRA 89)
• Pedigree: Lineage, descent, and succession of families; line of ancestors, from which a person
descends; genealogy; an account or register of a line of ancestors.
o (Black's Law Dictionary, by Henry Campbell Black, Fifth Edition, p. 589)
• Family Reputation: As to questions of genealogy and generally as to questions relating to birth,
marriages, and deaths, what is commonly said and understood to be true among the immediate
relatives and family connections of the party to whom the inquiry relates.
o (Philippine Law Dictionary, Federico Moreno, 3rd Edition, p. 367)

12
• Tradition: Knowledge, belief, or practices, transmitted orally from father to son, or from ancestor to
posterity.
o (Philippine Law Dictionary, Federico Moreno, 3rd Edition, p. 958)
• Common Reputation: The general or undivided reputation.
• Res Gestae: Statements, otherwise inadmissible in evidence because they are hearsay, which are
incidental to the main fact and explanatory of it, including acts and words which are so closely
connected with the main transaction as to constitute a part of it.
o (Topa vs. Paredes, 23 Phil. 255)
• Opinion: An informal expression of what the witness thinks, believes, or infers in regards to a fact in
dispute.
• Character Evidence: Evidence of a person's moral standing in the community based on reputation.
o (Black's Law Dictionary, Harry Campbell Black, Fifth Ed., p. 120)
• Presumption: A logical inference of the truth or falsity of a point in dispute.
• Presumption of Law: An inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known, arising from its
usual connection with another which is known.
• Presumption of Fact or Hominis: A deduction which reason draws from facts proved without an
express direction to that effect.
• Conclusive Presumption: Presumptions which always hold as true and cannot be overcome by
evidence to the contrary.
• Disputable Presumption: Presumptions of law which always hold true only as long as they are not
overcome by competent evidence to the contrary.
• Direct Examination: The examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts
relevant to the issue.
• Credibility of the Witness: Refers only to his integrity and to the fact that he is worthy of belief.
o (People of the Philippines vs. Rivera, 3 9 o. G. 58 0 . G. 52)
• Credibility of Testimony: Refers to the believability or the statements or testimony.
• Trial: A judicial process of investigating and determining legal controversies.
o (Acosta vs. People of the Philippines, 5 SCRA 774)
• Trial on the Merits: Trial of substantive issue in a case.
o (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 782)
• Inverted Trial: A kind of trial in which the accused admitted the crime but interposes an
exculpatory defense, and the burden of jurisdiction is now on him and he will be the first to present
evidence.
• Trial In Absentia: A kind of trial conducted after the accused has been arraigned and he was duly
notified of the trial and his failure to appear thereat is unjustified.
• New Trial or Trial De Novo: An application for a relief requesting that the judge set aside the
judgment and order a new trial on the basis that the trial was improper or unfair due to specified
prejudicial errors that occurred.
• Public Trial: A trial held in public in the presence of the public, or in a place accessible and open to
the attendance of the public at large, or of a person who may be properly admitted.
o (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 781)
• Speedy Trial: A trial conducted according to the law of criminal procedure and the rules and
regulations, free from vexatious, capricious delays.
o (Kalaw vs. Apostol, 54 Phil. 857)
• Joint or Consolidated Trial: When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending
before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it
may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein
as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
o (Sec. 1, Rule 31 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

13
• Separate Trial: The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, may order a separate
trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate issue or of
any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party complaints, or issue.
o (Sec. 2, Rule 31 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
• Trial by Commissioner: By written consent of both parties, the court may order any or all of the
issues in a case to be referred to a commissioner to be agreed upon by the parties or to be appointed
by the court.
o (Sec. 1, Rule 32 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
• Impartial Trial: A trial conducted by a disinterested Judge without favoring any party.
• Alternate Trial: A trial where parties take turns presenting their witnesses respecting the first factual
issue or related issues stated in the order of trial.
o (Sec. 24.1. of A.M. 14-03-02-SC, March 8, 2014 on the draft Revised Rules of Civil Procedure)
• Face-to-Face Trial: A trial wherein witnesses from the contending sides appear together before the
court, sit face-to-face around a table in a non-adversarial environment and answer questions from the
court as well as the parties' counsels respecting the factual issue under consideration.
o (Sec. 24.2. of A.M. 14-03-02-SC, March 8, 2014 on the draft Revised Rules of Civil Procedure)
• Examination of the Witness: The elicitation of information in a court by question and answer of
witness.
o (Philippine Legal Encyclopedia, Jose Agaton R. Sibal, 1988 Ed., p. 297)
• Affirmative Testimony: The testimony of a witness that he saw or heard or did a particular thing at
a particular time and place.
o (Subingsubing vs. Cebu Velez General Hospital, 42485-R, November 17, 1971)
• Expert Testimony: Testimony of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience or training which he is shown to possess, which may be received in evidence.
o (Sec. 52, Rule 130)
• Negative Testimony: Testimony of one present that he did not see or hear that which is claimed to
have occurred.
o (Eisma vs. Ocampo, CR-02381, May 29, 1986)
• Positive Testimony: Testimony of one present that he did see or hear that which is claimed to have
occurred.
o (Eisma vs. Ocampo, CR-02381, May 29, 1986)
• False Testimony: A false declaration under oath against a person knowing it to be false which may
result to conviction, acquittal, or liability.
• Self-Serving Testimony: An extrajudicial statement of a party, favorable to him, which is being
urged for admission to court during the trial of the case.
o (Somaco us. Angelo, 64 O. G. 13154)
• Hearsay Testimony: Testimony offered against a party who had no opportunity to examine the
witness.
o (People of the Philippines us. Caballero, 24059-CR, June 13, 1964)
• Witness: A person called in a judicial or similar proceeding to give testimony under oath.
• Competent Witness: A witness who is not legally disqualified from testifying in courts of justice, by
reason of mental incapacity, interest on the commission of crimes, or other cause excluding him
from testifying generally, or rendering him incompetent in respect of the particular subject matter, or
in the particular suit.
• Incompetent Witness: A witness who is disqualified from testifying in courts of justice by reason of
mental incapacity, interest on the commission of crimes, or other cause excluding him from testifying
generally, or rendering him incompetent in respect of the particular subject matter, or in the
particular suit.
• Biased Witness: A witness who tends to exaggerate.
o (People of the Philippines vs. Coderes, L-32509, April 27, 1981, 104 SCRA 274)

14
• Character Witness: A witness who testifies, being a Filipino, that he personally knows the petitioner
to possess the residence requirement, good reputation, integrity, qualifications and none of the
disqualifications to be a citizen of the Philippines.
o (Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, L-37453, May 25, 1979, 90 SCRA 196)
• Credible Witness: One whose testimony is worthy of credit and belief.
o (Lee vs. Secretary of Labor, 3 9 o. G. 1 oSl)
• Honest Witness: A witness who gives truthful testimony.
• Dishonest Witness: A witness who professes to remember things upon which he cannot readily
contradict and who declares that he forgets those upon he would be open to contradiction.
• Instrumental Witness: A witness who does not merely attest to the signature of the testator, but
also to the proper execution of the will.
o (Cuevas vs. Achacoso, 88 Phil 730)
• Plausible Witness: A witness who recreates the emotion at the time of the original incident.
o (People of the Philippines vs. Valdemoro, 16159-CR, July 30, 1979)
• State Witness: An accomplice who gives evidence in criminal proceeding, usually in the expectancy
of lighter punishment or pardon.
• Child Witness: Any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age of 18 years.
o (Sec. 4/aj, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, A.M. No. 004-07-SC, December 15, 2000)
• Expert Witness: A person who by study or experience has acquired particular knowledge or
experience upon matters of technical knowledge and skill relating to a specific business or
employment.
o (Dilag & Co. vs. Merced, 45 O.G. 5542)
• Hostile or Adverse Witness: A witness who manifests so much hostility or prejudice under
examination in chief that the party who has called him, or representative, is allowed to cross-examine
him.
o (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 376)
• Qualified Witness: A witness who can perceive, perceiving; and can make known their perception
to others, and possess all the qualification and none of the disqualification.
• Disqualified Witness: A witness who is excluded by law or the rules to give testimony.
• Leading Question: A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party
desires.
• Misleading Question: A question which assumes a fact not yet testified to by the witness or
contrary to his previous testimony.
• Harmless Question: A question which is of small importance or has no relation to the fact in issue.
• Open Question: A question which allows a witness to answer the way he wants to.
• Trick Question: A question which leaves the witness in a no win situation.
• Undeniable Question: A question that the cross-examiner can ask of the witness the answer which
the latter cannot deny.
• Direct Examination: The examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts
relevant to the issue.
• Contradictory Evidence: Refers to other testimony of the same witness, or other evidence
presented by him in the same case, but not the testimony of another witness.
• Prior Inconsistent Statement: Refers to statements, oral or documentary, made by the witness
sought to be impeached on occasion other than the trial in which he is testifying.
• Private Document: Any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person without the
intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is
proved or set forth.
• Extrinsic Fraud: Refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is
committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the unsuccessful party has been prevented from
exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent.

15
 o (Philippine Tourism Authority vs. Philippine Golf Development & Equipment, Inc., G.R. No. 176628,
March 19, 2012)
• Offer of Evidence: Presentation or introduction of evidence; a document or article is not evidence
when it is simply marked for identification; it must be formally offered as evidence.
o (People of the Philippines vs. Whipkey, 12590-CR, February 6, 1973)
• Objection: An argument or reasons presented against an act of the adverse party or his counsel, or
against the determination by the court in the course of the trial.
o (Philippine Legal Encyclopedia, Jose Agaton Sibal, 1998 Ed., p. 635)
• Weight of Evidence: The balance or preponderance of evidence; the inclination of the greater
amount of credible evidence offered in a trial to support one side of the issue rather than the other.
o (Black's Law Dictionary, Henry Campbell Black M.A, Fifth Edition, p. 822)
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The concept that the evidence submitted may have its own probative
value but in the appreciation thereof proper degrees are considered by the court.
o (A"oyo vs. El Beaterio, 28555-R, October 5, 1963)
• Extrajudicial Confession: A declaration made at any time by a person, voluntarily, and without
compulsion or inducement, stating or acknowledging that he has committed or participated in the
commission of a crime.
o (People of the Philippines vs. Mojica, 57 OG 6813)
• Corpus Delicti: Refers to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the body or
substance of the crime.

II. DOCTRINES, RULES, AND PRINCIPLES

• One Day One Witness Rule: Examination of the witness must be terminated within one (1) day,
inclusive of direct, cross, redirect, and re-cross examinations, unless the court will allow otherwise.
• Most Important Witness Rule: During pre-trial conference, the judge has the discretion to
determine who are the most important witnesses to be presented in the trial in order to limit
corroborative testimonies.
• Viatory Rights of the Witness Rule: A witness who resides one hundred (100) kilometers away
from the trial court where he is to travel in the ordinary course of travel, or he is a detention prisoner
and no permission is obtained from the court in which the case is pending, then he cannot be
compelled to comply with the subpoena or attend the trial.
• Equipose or Equiponderance of Evidence Rule: When the circumstances are capable of two or
more inferences, one of which is consistent with innocence and the other is compatible with guilt,
the presumption of innocence must prevail, and the court must acquit.
o (People of the Philippines vs. De Guzman y Donato, G.R. No. L-86498, March 26, 2010, Nachura, J.)
• "Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree": If the warrant issued by the judge did not comply
with the requisites of the law, and therefore, void, or when the search made without warrant is
unjustifiable, whatever is found or discovered afterwards, cannot be used as evidence against the
suspect.
o (People of the Philippines vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1; People of the Philippines vs. Montilla, 285 SCRA
703; Manalili vs. CA, 280 SCRA 400)
• "Doctrine of Relaxed Admissibility of Evidence": Relaxed admissibility of evidence to enable
Amparo petitioners to meet the required amount of proof showing the State's direct or indirect
involvement in the purported violations and found it a fair and proper rule in Amparo cases "to
consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality'' and "to consider any evidence otherwise
inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence
adduced," Put simply, evidence is not to be rejected outright because it is inadmissible under the rules
for as long as it satisfies "the most basic test of reason - i.e., relevance of the evidence.
o (In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor of Lilibeth Ladaga vs. Major
General Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding General of the Philippine Army 1s 10th Infantry Division, et al.;

16
 In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor of Angela A. Librada -
Trinidad us. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding General of the Philippine Anny 's 10th
Infantry Division, et al.; In the Matter for the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor of
Carlos Isagani T Zarate us. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding General of the Philippine
Anny 's J 0th Infantry Division, et al., G.R. No. 189689 / G.R. No. 1896 90/G. R. No. 189691,
November 13, 2012)
• Original Document Rule: When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing,
recording, photograph or other record, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original
document itself.
o (Sec. 3, Rule 130)
• Parol Evidence Rule: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
o (Sec. 10, Rule 130)
• Rule on Falsa Demonstration Non Nocet: Where there are two (2) descriptions in a deed, the one
as it were, super added to the other, and one description being complete and sufficient in itself, and
the other which is subordinate and super added is incorrect, the incorrect description or feature or
circumstance of the description is rejected as a surplusage, and the complete and correct description
is allowed to stand alone.
o (Myers vs. Ladd, 26 nz, 515, 417)
• Doctrine of "Presumed-Identity Approach" or "Processual Presumption": Where a foreign
law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same
as ours.
o (ATCI Overseas Corporation, Amalia G. Ikdal and Ministry of Public Health Kuwait vs. Ma. Josefa
Echin, G.R. No. 178551, October 11, 2010)
• Assumption of Truth Rule: When a motion to dismiss is filed, the material allegations of the
complaint are deemed to be hypothetically admitted.
o (The Municipality of Hagonoy Bulacan, et al. vs. Hon. Simeon Dumdum, Jr., G.R. No. 168289, March
22, 2010)
• "Chain of Custody Rule": The duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs
or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage,
from the time of seizure/ confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court.
• Res Inter Alios Acta Rule: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.
• Principle of Interlocking Confession: Extrajudicial confessions made independently without
collusion, which are identical with each other in their material respects and confirmatory of the other
are admissible as circumstantial evidence against their co-accused.
• Plain View Doctrine: Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an officer,
who has a right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as
evidence.

17
I. Constitutional Provisions Relative to the Rules on Evidence

• A. Due Process
o Definition: Opportunity to be heard.
o A formal trial-type hearing is not essential if parties have a fair chance to explain their side.
o NBI Investigations: Non-submission of a counter-affidavit in an NBI investigation is not a
violation of due process because the NBI's findings are merely recommendatory and it does
not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial powers.
o Student Disciplinary Cases: Students have the right to due process in disciplinary cases,
including adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
▪ Proceedings may be summary, and cross-examination isn't essential.
▪ Substantial evidence is sufficient.
o Evidence Preservation: Due process doesn't require the State to preserve a rape victim's
semen specimen unless bad faith is shown by the prosecution or police.
▪ Case Law: Alejano vs. People cites Arizona v. Youngblood, stating that the state doesn't
have to preserve evidence if it might be useful to the accused unless there is bad
faith.
• B. Equal Protection of Laws
o Basic Principle: Similarly situated persons should be treated similarly regarding rights and
responsibilities.
o Purpose: To protect against intentional and arbitrary discrimination by the State.
o The state must govern impartially and avoid distinctions based on irrelevant differences.
o Key Cases:
▪ Bureau of Customs Employee Association v. Teves
• C. Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizure
o Constitutional Guarantee: Protection of people, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
o Requirements for Warrants:
▪ Probable cause.
▪ Personal determination by a judge after examining the complainant and witnesses.
▪ Particular description of the place to be searched and items to be seized.
o Emergency Exception: A state of emergency proclaimed by a provincial governor is not a
legal basis for warrantless searches and seizures.
▪ Even martial law doesn't automatically suspend the Constitution or civil court
functions.
o Sufficiency of Description: The place to be searched must be identifiable with reasonable
effort.
▪ The specific room need not be identified.
▪ Case Law: People vs. Tuan
o Informant Tips: A mere tip from an unnamed informant doesn't authorize police to enter
private homes without a warrant.
▪ Case Law: Martin Villamor y Tayson and Victor Bonaobra y Gianan vs. People of the
Philippines
o Non-Parties: Non-parties can question the validity of a search warrant.
▪ Case Law: Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Rizza O. Mendoza
o Valid Warrantless Searches:
1. Incidental to Lawful Arrest:
2. Seizure of Evidence in Plain View:
3. Search of a Moving Vehicle:
4. Consented Warrantless Search:
5. Customs Search:
6. Stop and Frisk:

18
 7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances:
o Airport Frisking: Valid due to minimal intrusiveness, safety interests, and reduced privacy
expectations.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Hadji Socor Cadidia
o Government Employee Misconduct: Warrantless search of a government employee's
office is justified if there are reasonable grounds to suspect work-related misconduct.
▪ Case Law: Pollo vs. Constantino-David
o "Stop and Frisk" vs. Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest:
▪ Stop and Frisk: Prevents crime, determines identity, or maintains status quo while
seeking more information.
▪ Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest: Requires a crime committed in flagrante delicto
and is conducted to ensure there are no weapons and to preserve evidence.
o Requirements for Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest: The search must be preceded by a
lawful arrest.
▪ Case Law: Sanchez v. People
o Remedy for Quashing a Search Warrant:
▪ Appeal if the motion to quash was filed before a criminal action.
▪ Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 if the criminal case was already filed.
▪ Case Law: World Wide Web Corporation, et al. vs. People of the Philippines, et al./ Planet
Internet Corporation vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company
o Special Commercial Courts: Can issue writs of search and seizure in civil cases involving
violations of the Intellectual Property Code, enforceable nationwide.
• D. Right to Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
o Constitutional Guarantee: Privacy of communication and correspondence is inviolable
except upon lawful court order or when public safety and order require otherwise.
o Consequence of Violation: Evidence obtained in violation is inadmissible.
o Impeachment Proceedings: Admissibility of illegally wire-tapped recordings in
impeachment proceedings is not well-settled.
▪ Impeachment proceedings are considered sui generis (of its own kind).
o Consent Requirement: Private conversations are inadmissible without the consent of all
parties involved.
▪ Case Law: Salcedo-Ortanez vs. Court of Appeals
• E. Rights During Custodial Investigation ("Miranda Rights")
o Constitutional Rights:
1. Right to remain silent.
2. Right to competent and independent counsel, preferably of own choice; if can't
afford, one must be provided. Waiver must be in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
3. Right against torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any means which
vitiate free will.
4. Right against secret detention places or similar forms of detention.
5. Any confession/admission obtained in violation is inadmissible.
6. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations and provide
compensation/rehabilitation to victims.
o Definition of Custodial Investigation: Questioning initiated by law enforcement officers
after a person is taken into custody or deprived of freedom.
▪ Applies when the investigation focuses on a particular suspect in custody, and the
interrogation aims to elicit incriminating statements.
o Spontaneous Confessions: A voluntary confession to a police officer, not during custodial
investigation, is admissible even without a lawyer.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Guting

19
 o Administrative Investigations: Miranda rights do not apply to admissions made in
administrative investigations.
▪ Case Law: Tanenggee vs. People of the Philippines
• F. Right to Bail
o General Rule: All persons are bailable before conviction except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong.
o Conditions: Sufficient sureties or release on recognizance.
o Habeas Corpus Suspension: The right to bail remains even when the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus is suspended.
o Excessive Bail: Excessive bail shall not be required.
o Bail in Capital Offenses: Bail may be allowed if continued incarceration is injurious to
health or endangers life, regardless of the merits of the charge.
▪ Case Law: Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan
• G. Rights of the Accused
o Constitutional Rights:
1. Due process of law.
2. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
3. Right to be heard by self and counsel.
4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation.
5. Right to a speedy, impartial, and public trial.
6. Right to meet witnesses face to face.
7. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and production of
evidence.
o Trial in absentia: After arraignment, the trial may proceed despite the accused's absence if
they were duly notified and their failure to appear is unjustifiable.
• H. Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
o Constitutional Right: All persons have the right to a speedy disposition of cases before
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
o Factors to Consider:
1. Duration of the delay.
2. Reason for the delay.
3. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it.
4. Prejudice caused by the delay.
o Scope: Applies to all cases, including civil, administrative, judicial, and quasi-judicial
hearings.
▪ Case Law: Roquero vs. Chancellor of UP-Manila
o Purpose: To prevent disenchantment with the administration of justice.
o Ombudsman Delays: Delay by the Ombudsman in resolving a case under preliminary
investigation may violate the right to speedy disposition.
▪ Case Law: Rafael L. Coscolluela vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.

I. Right Against Self-Incrimination

o Constitutional Guarantee: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against

themselves.
o DNA Samples: Taking DNA samples doesn't violate the right because it only applies to
testimonial compulsion.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Olvis

20
 o Mandatory Drug Testing: Mandatory drug testing of an arrested person (regardless of the
crime) violates the right against self-incrimination.
▪ Case Law: Dela Cruz vs. People
o Paraffin Testing: Paraffin testing doesn't violate the right because it isn't testimonial
compulsion.
▪ Case Law: People vs. Fieldad
• J. Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court
o Constitutional Basis: Sec. 5, par. (5), Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
o Scope: Rules concerning protection/enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings,
practice, procedure in all courts, admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and
legal assistance to the underprivileged.
o Limitations:
1. Simplified and inexpensive procedure for speedy disposition.
2. Uniform for all courts of the same grade.
3. Shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
o Special Courts/Quasi-Judicial Bodies: Their rules remain effective unless disapproved by
the Supreme Court.
o Power to Amend/Repeal Rules: The Supreme Court can amend, repeal, or establish new
rules for a more simplified and inexpensive process and speedy disposition of cases.
▪ Case Law: Neypes vs. Court of Appeals
o Overturning Laws: The Supreme Court can invalidate provisions of law on points of
remedial law.
o Exclusivity of Power: The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and procedure
is solely with the Supreme Court.
o Purpose of Promulgation: To enable jurisdiction to be exercised by the Court.
▪ Case Law: Minerva A. Gomez-Castillo vs. COMELEC
o Requirement for Validity: Must conform to the Constitution.
▪ Case Law: Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. vs. Land Bank of the
Philippines
• K. Constitutional Provision on Judgment
o Requirements:
▪ The decision must clearly state the facts and the law on which it is based.
▪ Denial of petition for review or motion for reconsideration must state the legal
basis.

II. Basic Concept on Evidence

• A. Evidence in General
o Definition: Means, sanctioned by rules, of ascertaining the truth in a judicial proceeding.
▪ Sec. 1, Rule 128 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence
(A.M. No. 19-08-15)
o Purpose of Documentary Evidence: To ascertain the truthfulness of a matter at issue
related to the contents of the document.
▪ Case Law: Tomas Tan us. Jose Hosana
o Evidence vs. Proof:

| Feature | Evidence | Proof | | :-------- | :------------------------------------------------------------

-------- | :------------------------------------ | | Nature | Medium of proof, means of
ascertaining the truth | Effect or end result of evidence | | Function | Used to establish
facts | Establishes the fact in question |

21
 o Factum Probandum vs. Factum Probans:

| Feature | Factum Probandum | Factum Probans | | :--------------- | :--------------------------

---------------- | :------------------------------------------ | | Definition | Ultimate fact(s) to be
established | Evidentiary fact(s) | | Role | What needs to be proven | How the factum
probandum is established |

• B. Nature of the Rules on Evidence

o Procedural: Does not confer rights and can be waived.
o Stipulation: Can be the subject of stipulation if not contrary to law, morals, and public
policy.
• C. Kinds of Evidence
o Object Evidence: Directly addressed to the senses of the court (tangible things exhibited,
viewed, or demonstrated).
▪ (Sec. 1, Rule 130)
o Documentary Evidence: Writings, recordings, photographs, or any material containing
letters, words, sounds, etc., offered as proof of their contents.
▪ (Sec. 2, Rule 130)
o Testimonial Evidence: Oral evidence given by a witness.
o Direct Evidence: If believed, proves the fact in issue.
▪ Trial court can rely on circumstantial evidence too.
▪ Case Law: People vs. Federico Lucero
o Circumstantial Evidence: Proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may
be inferred.
▪ Case Law: Nover Bryan Salvador y De Leon vs. People of the Philippines
o Demonstrative Evidence: Demonstrates the real thing.
o Corroborative Evidence: Supplements existing evidence to strengthen it.
▪ Necessary when there's a reason to suspect the witness falsified the truth or their
observation was inaccurate.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Joemarie Jalbonian alias "Budo"
▪ Testimony of an informant is corroborative to that of the poseur buyer.
▪ Case Law: People vs. Michael Andres
▪ Alibi and frame-up are less plausible when corroborated only by relatives and
friends.
▪ Case Law: People vs. Reyes
o Cumulative Evidence: Of the same kind and character, tending to prove the same
proposition.
o Positive Evidence: A witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur.
▪ Case Law: People vs. Alfonso
o Negative Evidence: Testimony that a certain fact did not exist.
▪ Denial and alibi are negative evidence.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Noel Adallom y Tunge
o Prima Facie Evidence: Sufficient to sustain a proposition if unexplained or
uncontradicted.
▪ Case Law: Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan First Division
o Conclusive Evidence: Establishes the fact.
▪ Case Law: US vs. Pons
o Substantial Evidence: Relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to justify a conclusion (used in administrative and quasi-judicial agencies).
▪ Case Law: Avelina P Sagun vs. Sun Ace International Management Services Inc.
o Preponderance of Evidence: Greater weight of credible evidence, meaning the probability
of truth.

22
 ▪ Case Law: Cavile vs. Litania-Hong
o Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Required quantum to convict an accused; must rest on
moral certainty.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Rubio
o Clear and Convincing Evidence: Establishes a firm belief in the existence of the fact in
issue.
o Competent Evidence: Not excluded by law or rules.
▪ (Sec. 3, Rule 128)
o Incompetent Evidence: Excluded by law or rules.
o Relevant Evidence: Has a relation to the fact in issue.
▪ (Sec. 3, Rule 128)
o Material Evidence: Directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by substantive law and
pleadings.
▪ Case Law: Bautista vs. Aparece
o Rebuttal Evidence: Explains, repels, counteracts, or disproves adversary's proof; limited to
reply to new matters.
▪ Case Law: Ago Timber Corporation US. Abaya

23
Rules and Principles

I. Rules on Witnesses

• A. Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony:

o When cross-examination is not completed due to reasons attributable to the party who
offered the witness, the uncompleted testimony is rendered incompetent and should be
stricken from the record.
• B. Revival of Present Memory Rule:
o A witness may refresh memory by referring to writings or records made when the fact
occurred or was fresh in their mind, ensuring the writing's accuracy.
o The adverse party can inspect the writing, cross-examine the witness on it, and introduce it
as evidence.
• C. Revival of Past Recollection Rule:
o A witness may testify from a writing or record even without present recollection if they can
confirm its accuracy when made. Such evidence must be received with caution.
• D. Laying of the Predicate or Basis Rule:
o Before impeaching a witness with prior inconsistent statements, the witness must be
informed of the circumstances, time, places, and persons present.
o The witness must be allowed to explain the statements, and written statements must be
shown to the witness.

II. Rules on Documents

• A. Ancient Document Rule:

o Authenticity is presumed for private documents over 30 years old, produced from proper
custody, and free of alterations or suspicion.

III. Rules on Court Proceedings

• A. Evidence on Motion Rule:

o Courts may hear motions based on facts not of record via affidavits or depositions, or direct
oral testimony or depositions.

IV. Rules on Determining Common Causes of Action

• A. Same Evidence Test Rule:

o Used to ascertain whether two suits relate to a common cause of action.
o Considers if the same evidence supports both actions or if defenses in one case substantiate
the complaint in the other.
o Determines whether the second case's cause of action existed when the first complaint was
filed.

V. Rules on New Trial

• A. Berry Rule:
o A motion for a new trial can be made based on newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered and presented at the original trial, and
which would likely alter the result.

24
VI. Rules and Doctrines on Judgements

• A. Lord Coke Doctrine:

o Actionable issues are generally restricted to a review of the foreign court's jurisdiction,
personal notice, collusion, fraud, or mistake of fact or law.
o Limits repetitive litigation, protects party expectations, and promotes "rest and quietness".

VII. Rules on Confidentiality

• A. Confidential Information Rule:

o Protects information in mediation or arbitration that is expressly intended to be private or
obtained under circumstances creating a reasonable expectation of non-disclosure.
o Includes communications, notes, work products, and statements made during the dispute
resolution process.

VIII. Rules on Judicial Notice and Presumptions

• A. Doctrine of Judicial Notice:

o Judges can recognize certain facts without proof if they already know them.
o Judicial notice can be mandatory or discretionary.
• B. Bursting-Bubble Theory:
o A presumption of law does not apply if there is contrary evidence.

IX. Rules on Communication

• A. Doctrine of Absolute Privileged Communication:

o Actions and utterances in judicial proceedings by actual participants and preliminary steps
leading to official judicial action are absolutely privileged.

X. Rules on Liability

• A. Doctrine of Apparent Authority:

o Hospitals may be liable for the negligence of independent contractors if the contractor acts
as an ostensible agent of the hospital.
• B. Good Samaritan Rule:
o An offer to pay or payment of medical expenses due to an injury is not admissible as proof
of civil or criminal liability for the injury.

XI. Rules on Third Party Actions

• A. Res Inter Alios Acta Rule:

o A party's rights cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of another, except
as otherwise provided.

XII. Rules on Testimony

• A. First Hand Knowledge Rule:

o Witnesses can only testify about facts they know personally.
• B. Hearsay Evidence/Statement Rule:

25
 o Hearsay, an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is
inadmissible unless an exception applies.
• C. Principle of Independent Relevant Statement:
o A statement is relevant to the issue regardless of its truth.
• D. Principle of Res Gestae:
o Statements during or immediately before/after a startling event, or those accompanying an
equivocal act, are admissible as part of the res gestae.
• E. Opinion Rule:
o Witness opinions are generally inadmissible, with exceptions.

26
I. Basic Concept of Evidence

• Definition of Evidence:

o Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the rules, of ascertaining the truth respecting a matter
of fact in a judicial proceeding.

• Purpose of Introducing Documentary Evidence:

o To ascertain the truthfulness of a matter at issue related to the document's contents.

• Distinction Between Evidence and Proof:

o Evidence: The medium of proof, or the means sanctioned by the rules in ascertaining the
truth respecting a matter of fact.

o Proof: The effect or end result of evidence.

• Distinction Between Factum Probandum and Factum Probans:

o Factum Probandum: The ultimate fact or facts sought to be established.

o Factum Probans: The evidentiary fact or facts by which factum probandum is to be

established.

II. Nature of the Rules on Evidence

• Procedural in Character:

o The Rules on Evidence are procedural and do not confer rights.

o They can be waived and are subject to stipulation by the parties if not contrary to law,
morals, and public policy.

III. Kinds of Evidence

• Object or Real Evidence:

o Tangible things exhibited, viewed, or demonstrated in open court that are directly addressed
to the senses of the court.

• Documentary Evidence:

o Writings, recordings, photographs, or any material containing letters, words, sounds,

numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalents offered as proof of their contents.

• Testimonial Evidence:

o Oral evidence given by a witness on the witness stand or in any proceeding.

• Direct Evidence:

o Evidence that, if believed, proves the fact in issue.

o The trial court may also rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion.

27
• Circumstantial Evidence:

o Evidence that proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be
established by inference.

• Demonstrative Evidence:

o Evidence that demonstrates the real thing.

• Corroborative Evidence:

o Evidence that supplements evidence already given, tending to strengthen it.

o Necessary only when there are reasons to suspect the witness falsified the truth or their
observation was inaccurate.

o Testimony of an informant is merely corroborative to that of the poseur buyer.

o Alibi and frame-up are less plausible when corroborated only by relatives and friends due to
perceived partiality.

• Cumulative Evidence:

o Evidence of the same kind and character, tending to prove the same proposition.

• Positive Evidence:

o Testimony in which a witness affirms that a fact did or did not occur.

• Negative Evidence:

o Evidence/testimony that a certain fact did not exist.

o Denial and alibi are forms of negative evidence.

• Prima Facie Evidence:

o Evidence that, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain the proposition it

supports or to establish the facts.

• Conclusive Evidence:

o Evidence that establishes the fact.

• Substantial Evidence:

o Relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion;
this is the quantum of evidence required in administrative and quasi-judicial agencies.

• Preponderance of Evidence:

o The weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side, synonymous with
"greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence."

o Means probability of the truth and is more convincing to the court.

28
 • Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt:

o The required quantum of evidence to convict an accused, resting on moral certainty in an

unprejudiced mind that the accused committed the crime.

• Clear and Convincing Evidence:

o Evidence that establishes in the minds of a trier of facts a firm belief on the existence of the
fact in issue.

• Competent Evidence:

o Evidence not otherwise excluded by law or by the rules.

• Incompetent Evidence:

o Evidence excluded by law or by the rules.

• Relevant Evidence:

o Evidence that has a relation to the fact in issue.

• Material Evidence:

o Evidence directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by substantive law and pleadings.

• Rebuttal Evidence:

o Evidence to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove adversary's proof, receivable only where
new matters have been developed.

• Sur-Rebuttal Evidence:

o Evidence in reply to or to rebut new matter introduced in rebuttal.

• Primary Evidence:

o Evidence that assures the greatest certainty of the fact sought to be proved and does not
indicate the existence of other and better proof.

• Secondary Evidence:

o Any evidence other than the document itself.

• Evidence-in-Chief:

o The primary and main evidence presented by the parties to prove their cause or defense.

• Newly Discovered Evidence:

o Evidence discovered after trial that could not have been discovered before with due
diligence, is material, and would affect the case's merits and produce a different result if
admitted.

IV. Hierarchy of Evidentiary Values

29
 • Proof beyond reasonable doubt (highest)

• Clear and convincing evidence

• Preponderance of evidence

• Substantial evidence (lowest)

V. Sources of the Rules on Evidence

• 1987 Philippine Constitution

• 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)

• Rules on Pilot Testing of Hearings of Criminal Cases Involving Persons Deprived of Liberty
Through Videoconferencing (A.C. No. 37-2020, April 27, 2020)

• Rules of Procedure for Admiralty Cases (A.M. No. 19-08-14-SC, January 1, 2020)

• Revised Rules on Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases (A. M. 15-06-10, September 1, 2017)

• Philippine Competition Act (R.A. 10667, July 28, 20114)

• Resolution of the Supreme Court dated March 14, 1989 on the proposed rules on evidence

• Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, effective January 1, 2013)

• Child Witness Examination Rule (A.M. No. 004 07-SC, December 15, 2000)

• DNA Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, October 15, 2007)

• Electronic Evidence Rule (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)

• Rule 115 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure

• R.A. 4200 otherwise known as the Anti-Wire Tapping Act

• R.A. 9372, otherwise known as the Human Securities Act

• Substantive and remedial statute

• Judicial decisions

VI. Construction of the Rules on Evidence

• Liberal Construction:

o The Rules on Evidence, as part of the Rules of Court, shall be liberally construed to promote
a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

o The safer policy is to be liberal with evidence of doubtful relevancy, competency, or

admissibility, admitting it unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent.

o Liberal construction is proper where the lapse in literal observance has not prejudiced the
adverse party or deprived the court of its authority.

30
 • Purpose of Liberal Construction:

o To ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing a system that

obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in dispute settlement.

• Rationale for Liberal Construction:

o Procedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases.

o However, liberal construction is not a license to violate procedural requirements.

• Proper Application:

o Liberality is applicable only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances.

• Administrative Proceedings:

o The Rules on Evidence are not strictly applied in administrative proceedings.

• Electronic Evidence Rule:

o Shall be liberally construed to assist parties in obtaining a just, expeditious, and inexpensive
determination of cases.

o Takes into consideration the international origin of R.A. 8792, the Electronic Commerce
Act.

• Child Witness Examination Rule:

o Shall be liberally construed to uphold the best interests of the child and promote maximum
accommodation of child witnesses without prejudice to the constitutional rights of the
accused.

• Impeachment Trial:

o The Rules of Evidence and procedure shall be applied liberally and whenever they are
practicable in Impeachment Trial Cases.

VII. Scope of Application of the Rules on Evidence

• General Scope:

o The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as
otherwise provided by law or these rules.

• Cases Where Rules on Evidence Do Not Directly Apply:

o Election cases

o Land registration cases

o Cadastral proceedings

o Naturalization proceedings

31
 o Insolvency proceedings

o Other cases not mentioned in Sec. 4 of Rule 1

o Labor Cases

o Impeachment cases

• Exceptions to Non-Applicability:

o Suppletory character

o Whenever practicable and convenient

• Application by Analogy or Suppletory Character:

o The Rules of Court will be applied by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient.

o "Suppletory character" means it shall be applied suppletory when there is insufficiency in the
applicable rules.

• Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases:

o Shall apply to all newly filed criminal cases, including those governed by Special Laws and
Rules, in the First and Second Level Courts, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax
Appeals as of effectivity date.

o Shall also apply to pending criminal cases with respect to the remainder of the proceedings.

o Special laws and rules covered include the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Rules of
Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases, and Criminal Cases cognizable by Family
Courts and Commercial Courts.

o Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, the Revised Guidelines shall not apply to
criminal cases filed under the Rule on Summary Procedure.

• DNA Evidence Rule:

o Shall apply whenever DNA evidence is offered, used, or proposed to be offered or used as
evidence in all criminal and civil actions as well as special proceedings.

o In matters not specifically covered by this Rule, the Rules of Court and other pertinent
provisions of law on evidence shall apply.

• Child Witness Examination Rule:

o Shall govern the examination of child witnesses who are victims of crime, accused of a
crime, and witnesses to crime.

o Shall apply in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal proceedings involving child
witnesses.

32
 • Electronic Evidence Rule:

o Shall apply whenever an electronic document or electronic data message is offered or used in
evidence.

o Applies to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.

o As amended, it applies to all criminal and civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-
judicial and administrative proceedings.

o Text messages are admissible in evidence in criminal proceedings.

• Judicial Affidavit Rule:

o Shall apply to all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of evidence
before various courts, quasi-judicial bodies, and investigating officers.

o In criminal actions, it applies where the maximum imposable penalty does not exceed six
years, where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, or with respect to the civil
aspect of the actions.

• Rules of Court in Civil Forfeiture Cases:

o The Revised Rules of Court shall apply suppletory when not inconsistent with the provisions
of this special rules.

• Rules of Court in Labor Cases:

o The pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court of the Philippines may, in the interest of
expeditious dispensation of labor justice and whenever practicable and convenient, be
applied by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect.

VIII. Admissibility of Evidence

• General Rule:

o Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the
Constitution, law, or these rules.

• Requisites for Admissibility:

o It must be relevant to the issue sought to be proved.

o It must be competent or not otherwise excluded by the Constitution, law, or these rules.

• Examples of Incompetent or Excluded Evidence:

o Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights (search and seizure, privacy of

communication, custodial investigation, self-incrimination).

o Evidence obtained in violation of the Anti-Wire Tapping Law (R.A. 4200).

o Evidence obtained in violation of the Human Securities Act (R.A. 9372).

33
 o Object evidence in violation of the Chain of Custody Rule.

o Documentary evidence in violation of the Best Evidence Rule.

o Evidence in violation of the Parol Evidence Rule.

o Testimonial evidence obtained in violation of rules on disqualified witnesses or the Hearsay

Evidence Rule.

o Evidence in violation of Opinion Rule.

o Evidence in case of violation of the Sexual Abuse Shield Rule.

• Void Contract as Evidence:

o A void contract can be admitted as evidence to prove matters that occurred during its
execution.

• Kinds of Admissibility:

o Conditional admissibility.

o Multiple admissibility.

o Curative admissibility.

• Conditional Admissibility:

o Evidence that appears immaterial or irrelevant at the time of offer may be received on the
condition that other facts will be proved thereafter; otherwise, it will be stricken out.

• Multiple Admissibility:

o Evidence relevant and competent for two or more purposes should be admitted for any or
all purposes if it satisfies all legal requirements.

o Example: A dying person's oral statement may be treated as a dying declaration if the person
dies; otherwise, it will be considered part of res gestae.

• Curative Admissibility:

o A party may introduce incompetent evidence on their behalf if the court has admitted the
same kind of evidence adduced by the adverse party.

• Requisites of Curative Admissibility:

o Whether the incompetent evidence was seasonably objected to.

o Whether, regardless of the objection, the admission of such evidence will cause a plain and
unfair prejudice to the party against whom it was admitted.

• Determination of Admissibility:

o At the time it is offered to the court (Sec. 35, Rule 132).

34
 o In the case of object evidence, when it is presented in court for viewing or evaluation.

o In the case of testimonial evidence, at the time the witness is called to the stand.

o In the case of documentary evidence, when it is formally offered and before the case is
rested.

• Distinction Between Admissibility and Weight of Evidence:

o Admissibility depends on relevance and competence; weight pertains to evidence already

admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.

• Distinction Between Admissibility and Credibility of Evidence:

o Admissibility refers to the duty of the court to receive or allow the evidence; credibility refers
to the worthiness of belief of the evidence.

• Rule on Admissibility of Newly Discovered Evidence:

o Newly discovered evidence is that which is discovered after trial, could not have been
discovered with reasonable diligence, is material, and would probably change the judgment if
admitted.

• Inadmissible Evidence Under Simulated Birth Rectification Act:

o Petitions, documents, records, and papers relating to adoption and rectification of simulated
births cannot be used as evidence against those who simulated the birth of a child or who
cooperated in the execution of such simulation in any criminal, civil, or administrative
proceeding.

• Rule on Admissibility of Electronic Document:

o An electronic document is admissible if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed

by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated as prescribed by the Rules.

• Manner of Authentication of Electronic Document:

o Authenticity must be proved by evidence that it had been digitally signed, by evidence that
other appropriate security procedures were applied, or by other evidence showing its
integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.

• Admissibility of Audio, Photographic, Video, and Similar Evidence:

o Shall be admissible provided it shall be shown, presented, or displayed to the court and shall
be identified, explained, or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some
other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.

• Admissibility of Ephemeral Electronic Communications:

o Shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal
knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent
evidence may be admitted.

35
• Rule on Admissibility of Evidence in Relation to Confidentiality of Birth Records:

o The records of a person's birth shall be kept strictly confidential, and no information relating
thereto shall be issued except on the request of specific individuals or entities.

• Rule on Admissibility of Videotaped and Audiotaped Interview in Child Abuse Cases:

o The court may allow the admission of videotaped and audiotaped in-depth investigative or
disclosure interviews in child abuse cases.

36
I. Videotape and Audiotape Evidence in Child Abuse Cases

• Conditions for Admissibility:

o Child's inability to testify: The child witness is unable to testify in court due to grounds
established under Section 28(c).
o Qualified Interviewers: The interview was conducted by trained members of a
multidisciplinary team or representatives of law enforcement or child protective services to
determine if abuse occurred.
o Proving conditions: The party offering the evidence must prove that:
▪ (a) Identification: The recording identifies all individuals present, including their
images and voices.
▪ (b) No leading questions: The statement was not made due to leading questions
or improper suggestions.
▪ (c) Device Capability: The recording device was capable of recording testimony.
▪ (d) Competent Operator: The person operating the device was competent.
▪ (e) Authenticity: The recording is authentic and correct.
▪ (f) Preservation: The recording has been properly preserved.
o Availability for Examination: The interviewer must be available for examination at trial.
o Opportunity to Review: All parties must have the opportunity to view/listen to the
recording and receive a written transcript.
• Investigative Interview Not Recorded:
o Not Automatically Excluded: The fact that an investigative interview wasn't recorded
does not automatically exclude the child's statements or testimony from evidence.
o Reliability Consideration: However, it can be considered when determining the reliability
of the child's statements about the abuse.

II. Sexual Abuse Shield Rule

• Inadmissible Evidence:
o Other Sexual Behavior: Evidence to prove the alleged victim engaged in other sexual
behavior is inadmissible.
o Sexual Predisposition: Evidence to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim is
inadmissible.
• Exceptions:
o Source of Evidence: Evidence of specific instances of the alleged victim's sexual behavior
is admissible to prove someone other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or
other physical evidence.

III. Admissibility of Depositions

• Use of Deposition:
o A deposition to perpetuate testimony, or if admissible as evidence, may be used in actions
involving the same subject matter.
• Purposes:
o Impeachment: Contradicting or impeaching a deponent's testimony.
o Adverse Party Use: A deposition of a party, officer, director, or managing agent of an
organization may be used by an adverse party for any purpose.
o Witness Unavailable: Deposition of a witness can be used if the court finds the witness is
dead, resides more than 100 km from the trial, is out of the Philippines, is unable to attend
due to age, sickness, or imprisonment, or the party can't procure attendance by subpoena.

37
 o Exceptional Circumstances: If exceptional circumstances exist, the court may allow the
deposition in the interest of justice.
o Completeness: If a party offers part of a deposition, the adverse party can require the
introduction of all relevant parts.
• Not a Substitute for Testimony:
o Depositions are generally not meant to replace actual testimony in court.
o Depositions offered in lieu of oral testimony may be opposed as hearsay, unless certain
conditions are met.

IV. Admissibility in Relation to Preliminary Investigation

• No Ruling on Admissibility:
o The admissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon in a preliminary investigation.
o Public prosecutors determine if there is sufficient ground to believe a crime was committed
and the respondent is probably guilty.
• Purpose of Preliminary Investigation:
o It is merely preparatory to trial.
o The prosecutor doesn't have to present all evidence necessary for conviction at this stage.

V. Admissibility of Evidence in Relation to Search and Seizure

• Constitutional Right:
o People have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.
o Warrants shall only issue upon probable cause, determined personally by a judge after
examination of the complainant and witnesses, particularly describing the place and items to
be seized.
• Inadmissibility of Illegally Seized Evidence:
o Evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure is
inadmissible.
o Such evidence is considered "fruit of the poisonous tree".
• Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree:
o Evidence obtained under a void warrant or without a warrant is inadmissible.
• Judge's Duty:
o The judge must personally examine the complainant and witnesses under oath to determine
probable cause based on personal knowledge.
o Affidavits are not enough; the judge must depose the complainant and witnesses in writing.
• Marking of Seized Drugs:
o Marking can be done at the police station or office.
o Non-compliance with marking, inventory, and photographing requirements does not
automatically render drugs inadmissible.
o The key is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items.
o Admissibility depends on relevance and whether it's excluded by law or rules.
o Non-compliance affects the evidentiary weight, not admissibility.
• Hearsay and Personal Belief:
o Search warrants cannot be based on hearsay; probable cause must be based on personal
knowledge.
o Search warrants should be based on personal knowledge of the applicant and witnesses, not
personal belief.
• Receipt of Seized Goods:
o The receipt should be signed and attested by a witness who is not part of the raiding team.

38
 • Accused's Signature on Receipt:
o If the accused signs the receipt, it may be considered an extrajudicial confession, which is
inadmissible if uncounseled.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt:
o Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required for determining probable cause; prima facie
evidence is sufficient.
• Warrantless Search of Government Employee:
o A warrantless search of a government employee's office is justified if there are reasonable
grounds to suspect work-related misconduct.
• Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest:
o A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or items that constitute
proof of the offense without a search warrant.
• Effect of Lawful Arrest:
o Evidence obtained during a lawful arrest is admissible.
• Scope of Search:
o If the arrest is lawful, the arrestor may seize items that may be used as proof of the offense.
• Search of House After Arrest:
o If a person is arrested for the sale of illegal drugs, their house may be searched incident to
that lawful arrest.
• Limitations:
o The search should be limited to the area within the arrestee's reach for weapons or to
destroy evidence.
o It requires in flagrante delicto arrest.
• Valid Warrantless Searches:
o Consent: If the person consents to the search.
o Enforcement of Customs and Tariff Laws:
o Search and Seizure of Vessels and Aircraft:
o Insurgency and Exigency:
o Inspection of Buildings:
o Plain View Doctrine:
o Stop and Search at Checkpoints:
• Warrantless Search of Moving Vehicle/Vessel:
o Allowed only when it is not practical to secure a warrant.
o There must be probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found in the vehicle.
o Motor cars may be inspected at borders or in the interior upon probable cause.
o Vessels and aircrafts may be searched due to their mobility.
o "Stop and Frisk Rule".
o Exigent circumstances may make obtaining a warrant impractical.

VI. Rule on Admissibility of Dangerous Drugs ("Chain of Custody Rule")

• Requisites for Admissibility:

o Possession of the prohibited drug unauthorized by law.
o Free and conscious possession of the prohibited article.
• Mode of Authentication:
o The chain of custody rule requires evidence to support a finding that the offered exhibit is
what the proponent claims.
o This obviates substitution and ensures the identity of the evidence.
• Nature of Chain of Custody:
o Ideally perfect but often impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.
• Requirements for Authentication:

39
 o Testimony about every link in the chain, from pickup to offering as evidence.
o Each person who touched the exhibit should describe how it was received, where it was,
what happened to it, its condition, and how it was delivered to the next link.
o Precautions taken to ensure no changes were made.
o Strictness depends on the item's susceptibility to alteration, tampering, or substitution.
• Primary Functions:
o To ensure the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
• Purpose:
o To establish the link between the confiscated article and the evidence presented in court.
• Effect of Failure to Comply:
o Failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 does not automatically make seized items
inadmissible.

VII. Rule on Allowance of Evidence Marked During Pre-Trial

• Requirement:
o Evidence should be identified and pre-marked during pre-trial to be allowed during trial.
• Exception:
o The court may allow evidence not previously marked for "good cause".

VIII. Rule on Admissibility of Evidence in the Entries in the Official Records

• Rule:
o Entries in official records made by a public officer in the performance of duty are prima
facie evidence of the facts stated.
• Requisites:
o The entry was made by a public officer or someone specially enjoined by law.
o It was made in the performance of their duties.
o The officer or person had sufficient knowledge of the facts, acquired personally or through
official information.

IX. Rule on Admissibility of Evidence Under Anti-Wire Tapping Law (R.A. 4200)

• Constitutional Right:
o Privacy of communication and correspondence is inviolable except upon a lawful court
order or when public safety requires.
o Evidence obtained in violation is inadmissible.
• Acts Punished:
o Tapping wires or cables without authorization from all parties.
o Secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording communications.
o Knowingly possessing, replaying, communicating, or furnishing transcriptions of illegally
obtained recordings.
• Penalties:
o Imprisonment for not less than six months.
o Perpetual absolute disqualification from public office for public officials.
o Deportation proceedings for aliens.
• Instances of Allowed Overhearing:
o Peace officers authorized by a written court order can execute acts otherwise unlawful in
cases involving: treason, espionage, provoking war, disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny,
rebellion, conspiracy/proposal to commit rebellion, inciting rebellion/sedition/conspiracy to
commit sedition, kidnapping, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616.

40
 • Requirements for Order Issuance:
o Written application.
o Examination under oath of the applicant and witnesses.
o Reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been/is being/is about to be committed.
o Prior proof of rebellion or sedition in related cases.
o Reasonable grounds to believe evidence will be obtained.
o No other means readily available for obtaining evidence.
• Order Contents:
o Identity of persons whose communications are to be intercepted.
o Identity of the authorized peace officer.
o Offense committed or sought to be prevented.
o Period of authorization.
• Period of Effectivity:
o No more than 60 days, unless extended by the court.
• Recordings:
o Must be deposited with the court within 48 hours after the authorization period.
o Accompanied by an affidavit.
o Not to be opened, replayed, used in evidence, or revealed except by court order.
• Admissibility of Evidence:
o Communications or spoken words obtained in violation of the Anti-Wire Tapping Law are
inadmissible.
• Impeachment Proceeding:
o Illegally wire-tapped recordings may be admissible as it is not a judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative, or administrative hearing or investigation.
• Consent of Parties:
o Absence of consent from both parties makes the communication inadmissible.
• Violation of R.A. 4200 in Pending Criminal Case:
o Tape-recorded conversation without consent violates the law and is inadmissible.
• Public Communication:
o Tape recording is admissible, and it is not a transgression because the recorded conversation
is not a private communication.
• Overhearing of Telephone Conversation:
o Telephone extension line is not embraced by the words "any device described" under the law
and therefore admissible in evidence.

X. Rule on Admissibility of Evidence in Relation to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020

• Surveillance, Interception, and Recording of Communication:

o Law enforcement or military personnel may, upon written order of the Court of Appeals,
wiretap, overhear, intercept, screen, read, surveil, record, or collect any private
communication between members of judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organizations,
between members of a designated person, or any person charged with or suspected of
committing any of the crimes.
• When it is Not Allowed:
o Surveillance, interception, and recording of communications shall not be authorized in the
following between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources,
and confidential business correspondence.
• Formal Application for Judicial Authorization:
o Filing of an ex-parte written application by a law enforcement agent or military personnel,
who has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC).

41
 o After examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may
produce, the issuing court determines:
▪ that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that the crimes defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, and 12 of this Act has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to
be committed.
▪ that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that evidence, which is essential to the conviction of any charged or
suspected person for, or to the solution or prevention of, any such crimes, will be
obtained.
• Evidentiary Value of Deposited Materials:
o Any listened to, intercepted, and recorded communications, messages, conversations,
discussions, or spoken or written words, or any part or parts thereof, or any information or
fact contained therein, including their existence, content, substance, purport, effect, or
meaning, which have been secured in violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act, shall
be inadmissible and cannot be used as evidence against anybody in any judicial, quasi-
judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.

XI. Rule on the Admissibility of Photographic Video and other Similar Evidence under the Rules on
Environmental Cases

• Admissibility:
o Photographs, videos, and similar evidence of events, acts, transactions of wildlife, wildlife
by-products or derivatives, forest products, or mineral resources subject of a case shall be
admissible when:
▪ Authenticated by the person who took the same.
▪ By some other person present when said evidence was taken.
▪ By any other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.

XII. Rule on the Admissibility of Sworn Statement in case of Discharge as a State Witness

• Discharge of Accused to be State Witness:

o Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial.
o If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as a state witness, his sworn
statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.

XIII. Rule on the Admissibility of Evidence under the Doctrine of Falsius in Uno Falsius in
Omnibus

• Not an Absolute Rule of Law:

o Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law since it deals only with the
weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law, and the same is not an inflexible one of
universal application.

XIV. Rule on the Admissibility of Alibi and Denial

• Nature of Alibi as a Defense:

o Alibi is an inherently weak defense that must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
• Denial and Positive Identification:
o Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification.

42
 o Like alibi, denial is an inherently weak defense, which cannot prevail over the positive and
credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
• Requisites for Alibi to Prosper:
o For alibi to prosper, the accused must be at a different place at the time the crime was
committed, and it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of
its commission.
• Meaning of Physical Impossibility:
o "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 two places.
• Positive Identification to Prevail Over Alibi:
o Positive identification when categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive
on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter prevails over a denial if not
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
• Positive Identification or Incomplete Entry:
o Positive identification of the accused prevails over an incomplete entry in the blotter.
• Quantum of Evidence to Prove Alibi:
o Alibi must be corroborated and substantiated by clear and convincing evidence to be given
weight.
• Characteristic of Alibi as Evidence:
o Alibi are self-serving negative evidence which cannot prevail over the spontaneous, positive,
and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and easy to concoct and difficult to
disprove.

43
II. Defenses

• Alibi

o Defined as a self-serving negative evidence that asserts the accused was elsewhere when
the crime occurred.

o Cannot prevail over spontaneous, positive, and credible testimonies of prosecution

witnesses.

o Easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.

o Quantum of evidence: Must be corroborated and substantiated by clear and convincing

evidence.

o Requirements for Alibi to Prosper

▪ Requirements of time and place must be strictly met.

▪ Demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible

for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its
commission.

▪ Established by other credible persons.

o Judge's Duty:

▪ A judge must keep an open mind and guard against slipping into hasty conclusions
since not all alibis are fabricated.

o Effect of Unsubstantiated Alibi:

▪ Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in

law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony.

o Case Law Examples:

▪ People of the Philippines vs. Nonoy Ebet: Alibi must be corroborated and substantiated by
clear and convincing evidence to be given weight.

▪ People of the Philippines VS. Guillermo Lomaque: Plane tickets issued in 1994 were
irrelevant to incidents that transpired from 1996 to 1999, thus alibi was
uncorroborated.

▪ People of the Philippines vs. Noel Adallom y Tunge: The Supreme Court could not ascribe
much probative weight to said witnesses' testimonies.

▪ Antonio Lejano vs. People of the Philippines: A judge must keep an open mind.

▪ People of the Philippines vs. Enerio Ending y Onyong: The Supreme Court, however, did
not give credence to his defense.

44
 ▪ People of the Philippines vs. Wenceslao Nelmida: Alibi is inherently a weak defense which
cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.

• Denial

o Considered self-serving negative evidence.

o Cannot prevail over positive identification.

o Effect of Unsubstantiated Denial:

▪ Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in

law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony.

o Judge's Duty:

▪ A judge must keep an open mind.

• Frame-Up

o Viewed with disfavor because it is easily concocted but difficult to prove.

o Must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

o Corroboration:

▪ Less plausible when corroborated only by relatives and friends due to perceived
partiality.

o Case Law:

▪ People vs. Guevarra: The defense of frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by
this Court with disfavor.

▪ People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Gani y Tupas: In order to prosper, the defense of
frame-up must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence.

III. Other Rules on Admissibility and Weight of Evidence

• Recantation of Testimony

o Generally looked upon with disfavor.

o Could be secured by considerations other than telling the truth.

o Does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration but is subject to credibility tests.

o Case Law:

▪ Kaunlaran Lending Investors, Inc. and Lelia Chuasy vs. Loreta Uy: Courts do not generally
look with favor on any retraction or recanted testimony.

• Failure to Report an Incident

45
 o Does not necessarily affect the credibility of the victim.

o Delay may be attributed to the victim's age and the circumstances of the case.

o Not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge.

o Delayed criminal accusation if satisfactorily explained does not impair credibility.

o Case Law:

▪ People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Fragante: Delay could be attributed to the victim's
tender age and the appellants threats.

▪ People of the Philippines vs. Roger Tejero: The Supreme Court pronounced that the failure
of the victim to immediately report the rape is not necessarily an indication of a
fabricated charge.

▪ People of the Philippines vs. Sahudo: Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation
does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily
explained.

• Doctrine of Relaxed Admissibility of Evidence in Writ of Amparo

o Considers the totality of evidence.

o Evidence otherwise inadmissible may be admitted if consistent with admissible evidence.

o Evidence is not rejected outright if it satisfies the basic test of relevance.

o Case Law:

▪ Razon, Jr. vs. Tagitis: Laid down a new standard of relaxed admissibility of evidence
to enable Amparo petitioners to meet the required amount of proof.

• Out-of-Court Identification of Suspects

o Courts consider the totality of circumstances.

o Factors include:

▪ Witness' opportunity to view the perpetrator.

▪ Witness' degree of attention.

▪ Accuracy of prior description.

▪ Level of certainty.

▪ Time between crime and identification.

▪ Suggestiveness of the identification procedure.

o Photographic Identification Procedure:

▪ A series of photographs must be shown, not just the suspect's.

46
 ▪ Arrangement and display should not suggest who the suspect is.

o Case Law:

▪ People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Pineda y Manalo: There was impermissible suggestion
because the photographs were only of appellant and Sison, focusing attention on the
two accused.

• Objection to Admissibility of Evidence

o Timing:

▪ Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after the offer is
made.

▪ Objection to testimony for lack of formal offer must be made as soon as the witness
begins to testify.

▪ Objection to a question must be made as soon as grounds are apparent.

o Grounds: Must be specified.

o Waiver:

▪ Objections cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

▪ Failure to object means evidence is admissible.

▪ Objection against the admission of any piece of evidence must be made at the
proper time.

o Purpose:

▪ Evidence must be objected otherwise it is admissible.

o Statute of Frauds:

▪ Objection on the admissibility of evidence on the basis of Statute of Fraud must be

raised at the earliest possible opportunity.

o Case Law:

▪ People of the Philippines vs. Baida Salak: Objections to the admissibility of evidence
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

▪ People of the Philippines S. Roberto Lopez: The rule is that evidence not objected to is
deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its
judgment.

▪ People of the Philippines vs. Alvin Del Rosario: It is a rule of evidence that any objection
against ne admission of any piece of evidence must be made at the proper time and
that if not so made it will be understood to have been waived.

47
 ▪ Vda. de Ouano vs. Republic of the Philippines: The obiection on the admissibility of
evidence on the basis of the Statute of Frauds may be waived if not timely raised.

IV. Relevancy and Collateral Matters

• Relevancy:

o Evidence must relate to the fact in issue.

o Induce belief in its existence or non-existence.

• Collateral Matters:

o Generally not allowed.

o Exception: When it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

• Distinction Between Relevancy and Competency:

o Relevancy: Relation to the fact in issue.

o Competency: Admissibility under the law or rules.

• Test of Relevancy:

o Satisfied if there is a logical connection between the fact offered and the fact to be proved.

o Case Law:

▪ People of the Phiippines vS. Samin Zakaria y Makasulay and Joana Zakaria y Silungan: The
test of relevancy is whether an item of evidence will have any value, as determined
by logic and experience, in proving the proposition for which it is offered.

V. What Need Not Be Proved

• Judicial Notice

o General Concept: "What is known need not be proved".

o Purpose:

▪ Taking the place of proof.

▪ Abbreviating proceedings.

o Requisites:

▪ Matter of general or common knowledge.

▪ Well and authoritatively settled.

▪ Known within the court's jurisdiction.

o Principle:

▪ Convenience.

48
 ▪ Expediency.

o Basis:

▪ Wisdom and discretion of the courts.

o Case Law:

▪ People of the Philippines vs. Lotis: It means no more than the court will bring to its aid
and consider without proof of the facts, its knowledge of those matters of public
concern which are known by all well-informed persons.

▪ Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Commission ou Customs: Under the Rules of
Court, judicial notice may either be mandatory or discretionary.

▪ First Acceptance and Investment Corporation vs. Carry-All Marketing Corporation: Three (3)
requisites to any judicial notice of any suggested fact have been stated.

▪ Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Commission on Customs: The doctrine of judicial
notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts.

• When Judicial Notice is Mandatory

o Matters include:

▪ Existence and territorial extent of states.

▪ Political history.

▪ Forms of government and symbols of nationality.

▪ Law of nations.

▪ Admiralty and maritime courts and their seals.

▪ Political constitution and history of the Philippines.

▪ Official acts of legislative, executive, and judicial departments.

▪ Laws of nature.

▪ Measure of time.

▪ Geographical divisions.

o Other Matters:

▪ Amendments to the Rules of Court.

▪ Decisions of the Supreme Court.

▪ Official acts or declarations of the President.

▪ Banking practices.

▪ Financial status of the government.

49
 ▪ Powers of the President.

▪ Court records.

o Case Law:

▪ Republic of the Philippines us. Segundina Rosario: A court shall take judicial notice,
without the introduction of evidence, of the official acts of the legislative, executive,
and judicial departments of the Philippines.

▪ CLT Realty Development Corporation vs. Hi-Grade Feeds Corporation: Courts should take
judicial notice of the official acts of the Senate under Sec. 1, Rule 129.

▪ Boac vs. Cadapan: The court takes judicial notice of its Decision in Secretary of
National Defense vs. Manalo.

▪ Rico Rommel Atienza vs. Board of Medicine and Editha Sioson: Laws of nature involving
the physical sciences, specifically biology, include the structural make-up and
composition of living things such as human beings.

o Law of Nations:

▪ The Philippines adopts generally accepted principles of international law.

▪ Expressly provided under the Constitution that "The Philippines renounces war as
an instrument of national policy.

o "Buy-Bust" Operations:

▪ Courts can take judicial notice that buy-bust operations are "susceptible to police
abuse".

▪ Case Law:

▪ People of the Philippines vs. Eddie Barte: It is a matter of judicial notice that buy-
bust operations are "susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of
which is its use as a tool for extortion".

o Documents:

▪ Documents are not among the matters which the law mandatorily requires the
Court to take judicial notice of, without any introduction of evidence.

▪ Case Law:

▪ SILKAIR (Singapore PTE Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Intermal Revenue:

Furthermore, the documents are not among the matters which the law
mandatorily requires the Court to take judicial notice of, without any
introduction of evidence petitioner would have the CTA do.

• When Judicial Notice is Discretionary

o Matters of public knowledge.

50
o Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration.

o Matters that judges ought to know because of their judicial functions.

o Court Records:

▪ As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of
the records of other cases.

▪ Case Law:

▪ Republic of the Philippines vs. Science Park of the Philippines, Inc.: As a general rule,
courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the
records of other cases.

▪ Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Commission on Customs: As a general rule,

courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the
records of other cases.

▪ Exception: In the absence of objection and as a matter of convenience to all parties.

▪ Case Law:

▪ Landbank of the Philippines vs. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises: Generally, courts

are not authorized to "take judicial notice of the contents of the records of
other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same
court or before the same judge".

o Foreign Laws:

▪ Requirements:

▪ The issue involved is one of fact and not of law.

▪ The foreign law must be proved like any other fact.

▪ Exceptions:

▪ When the court has actual knowledge of the foreign laws.

▪ When the court has already ruled upon in a case involving the said foreign
law.

▪ Rationale:

▪ Our courts cannot take judicial notice of the foreign law.

▪ Duty of Executor/Administrator:

▪ To introduce the pertinent law of the foreign court.

▪ Case Law:

▪ Merope Enriquez Vaa. de Catalan vs. Louella A. Catalan Lee: Like any other
facts, they must be alleged and proved.

51
 ▪ Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Escolin: The necessity of
presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon which the probate in the
foreign country is based is impelled by the fact that our courts cannot take
judicial notice of them.

▪ Ancheta us. Guersey-Dalaygon: Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our

Jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of
themn.

▪ "Presumed-Identity Approach" or "Processual Presumption":

▪ If foreign law is not pleaded or proved, it is presumed to be the same as

Philippine law.

▪ Case Law:

▪ ATCI Overseas Corporation, Amalia G. Tkdal and Ministry of Public

Health-Kuwait vs. Ma. Josefa Echin: Where a foreign law is not pleaded
or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign
law is the same as ours.

▪ Foreign Divorce:

▪ Processual presumption is not applicable in cases of foreign divorce in the

Philippines.

▪ Case Law:

▪ David Noveras Us. Leticia Noveras: Even ifwe apply the doctrine of
processual presumption as the lower courts did with respect to the
property regime the parties, the recognition of divorce is entirely a
different matter because, to begin with, divorce is not recognized
between Filipino citizens in the Philippines.

o City or Municipal Ordinance:

▪ MTCs, MCTCs: Must take judicial notice of laws and ordinances where they sit.

▪ RTCs: Must take judicial notice of laws of the land.

▪ Ordinances: RTCs are not mandatorily required to take judicial notice of, except:

▪ When required by law or statute.

▪ In case of appeal involving the ordinance.

▪ In case of facts of unquestionable demonstration.

• When Hearing is Necessary in Judicial Notice

o During pre-trial and trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion shall hear the parties on
the propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.

52
 o Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, may take judicial
notice of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such matter is decisive of a material
issue in the case.

VI. Judicial Admissions

• General Rule

o An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the
same case, does not require proof.

o The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that the imputed admission was not in fact made.

• Definition

o Judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in thhe same case, which dispenses with the need for proof with respect to the
matter or fact admnitted.

o Case Law:

▪ Camitan vs. Fidelity Investment Corporation: A judicial admission is an admission, verbal

or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, which
dispenses with the need for proof with respect to the matter or fact admitted.

▪ Heirs of Antonio Feraren, et al. vs. Court of Appeals and Cecilia Tadiar: Under Sec. 5, Rule
129 of the Rules of Court, petitioners may not contradict this judicial admission
unless they are able to show that it was made Through palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made.

• Requisites for a Valid Judicial Admission

o It must be definite, certain, and unequivocal.

o Case Law:

▪ Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan: Any statement, to be considered as an

admission for purposes of judicial proceedings, should be definite certain and
unequivocal, otherwise, the disputed fact will not be settled.

• Purpose of Admission

o Every admission is taken as an entirety of the fact which makes for the one side limit,
modify or destroy its effect on the other side.

o It can be contradicted by evidence aliundeto show that it was made through palpable
mistake.

o Case Law:

53
 ▪ Republic of the Philippines vs. Cojuangco, et al: Every alleged admission is taken as an
entirety of the fact which makes for the one side with the qualifications which limit,
modify or destroy its effect on the other side.

• Remedy in Case of Palpable Mistake

o Admissions in a pleading even if not shown to be made through "palpable mistake" can still
be corTected or amended provided that the amendment is sanctioned under Rule 10 of the
Rules of Court.

o Case Law:

▪ Aderito Yujuico vs. United Resources Asset Management, Inc., et al.: Hence, allegations (and
admissions) in a pleading- even if not shown to be made through "palpable
mistake"- can still be corrected or amended provided that the amendment is
sanctioned under Rule 10 of the Rules of Court.

• When Judicial Admission is Made

o A party may make judicial admissions in: (a) the pleadings; (b) during the trial, either by
verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of the judicial
proceeding.

o Case Law:

▪ Demetria de Guzman, et al vs. Filinvest Development Corporation: A party may make judicial
admissions in (a) the pleadings; (b) during the trial, either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages the judicial proceeding.

• Insufficient Ground to Set Aside Admission

o No, bare allegations of the counsel of palpable mistake in his rush to file the answer,
unsubstantiated by evidenct are not equivalent to proof and not a valid ground to s* aside
the same.

o Case Law:

▪ Dimaguila VS. Jose and Sonia Monteiro: Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court
provides that an admission made by a party in the course of and proceedings in the
same case does not require proof and may be contradicted only by showing that it as
made through palpable mistake.

• Nature of Admission During Pre-Trial Conference

o The statement made during pre-trial conference is a judicial admission, it does not require
proof according to Sec. 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.

o Case Law:

▪ Tranquilino Agbayani us. Lupa Realty Holding Corporation: The admission by Nonito's
counsel during the pre-trial proceedings before the RTC that there was no sale
between Tranquilino and Nonito qualifies as a judicial admission because the

54
 statement is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement of a party's attorney during
judicial proceedings in open court about a concrete or essential fact within that
party's peculiar knowledge.

• Effects of Judicial Admission

o Judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it and cannot thereafter take a
position contradictory to, or inconsistent with his pleadings.

o Case Law:

▪ Extraordinary Development Corporation vs. Herminia Samson-Bico and Ely Flestado: A party
may make judicial admissions in (a) the pleadings, (b) during the trial, either by
verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, or (c) in other stages of the judicial
proceeding.

• Effect of Judicial Admissions in the Pleading

o An admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such
admission and are conclusive as to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent
therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or not.

o Case Law:

▪ Efren Leynes vs. People of the Philippines: A party who judicially admits a fact cannot
later challenge [thel fact as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of
evidence is dispensed with.

• Extrajudicial Confession

o If the declarant repeats the statement in court, hiss extraiudicial_confession becomes a

judicial admission, making the testimony admissible as to both conspirators.

o Case Law:

▪ People of the Philippines vs. Janjalani: While it is true that statements made by a
conspirator against a co-conspirator are admissible only when made during the
existence of the conspiracy, if the declarant repeats the statement in court, his
extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial admission, making the testimony
admissible as to both conspirators.

• Actionable Document

o No, admission in the answer on the due execun0 of an actionable document can only be
contradicted oy palpable mistake.

o Case Law:

▪ Equitable Cardnetwork, Inc. vs. Josefa Borromeo Capistrano: An admission in the answer
and due execution of thhe plaintiff's actionable document, can only be contradictea
by showing that defendant made such admission through palpable mistake.

55
• Admitted Facts vs. Proposed Facts

o The Rules of Court has no rule that treats the statements found under the heading Proposed
Evidence as admissions binding on the party.

o Case Law:

▪ Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan First Division): The Rules of Court has no
rule that treats the statements found under the heading Proposed Evidence as
admissions binding on the party.

• Allegations of the Plaintiff

o Facts alleged in the complaint are deemed admissions of the plaintiff and binding upon him.

o Case Law:

▪ Sps. Del Rosario us. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Inc.: Correspondingly, "facts alleged in the
complaint are deemed admissions of the plaintiff and binding upon him".

• Judicial Admission vs. Judicial Confession

o Judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case while Judicial confession is an acknowledgment of one's guilt
in the same case.

o Judicial admission does not result in liability while Judicial confession connotes admission of
one's liability.

o Judicial admission may be express or implied while Judicial confession is always express or
tacit.

o Judicial admission is more of a broader scope while Judicial confession is only limited to the
confession of a person.

• Judicial Admission vs. Extrajudicial Admission

o Judicial admission is an admission made in the same case while Extrajudicial admission is an
admission made in another case or out of court admission.

o Judicial admission need not be proven by the party being conclusive on the part of the
admitter, unless it was made through palpable mistake or when there is no admission made
while Extrajudicial admission needs to be alleged and proved like any other fact.

• Instances Where Judicial Admissions Can Be Made

o Admissions made in the pleadings.

o Admissions made during pre-trial conference.

o Admissions made in motions filed before the court.

o Admissions made by the witness on the witness stand.

56
 o Admissions made in answer to written request for admission.

o Admissions made in the answer in the written.

o Admissions made in open court during trial.

o Admission on testimonies, deposition, and affidavits.

o Agreement of facts by the parties.

• Hypothetical Admission Rule

o When a motion to dismiss is filed, the material allegations of the complaint are deemed to be
hypothetically admitted.

o Case Law:

▪ The Municipality of Hagonoy Bulacan, et al vs. Hon. Simeon Dumdum, Jr.: When a motion
to dismiss is filed, the material allegations of the complaint are deemed to be
hypothetically admitted.

• Request for Admission Under Rule 26

o Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted.

o Duty of the Party Served:

▪ File and serve upon the party requesting admission a sworn statement either denying
specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail
the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters which shall
not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof.

o Effect of Failure to File an Answer:

▪ The silence of defendant on the plaintiff's request for admission amounts to an

implied acceptance of the facts set forth therein with the effect that plaintiff's claim
stood undisputed.

▪ Case Law:

▪ Manzano vs. Despabiladeras: Each matter must be denied specifically under

oath setting forth in detail the reason why he cannot truthfully admit or
deny.

o Redundant, Unnecessary, and Vexatious Request:

▪ The redundant and unnecessarily vexatious nature of petitioner's request for

admission rendered it ineffectual, futile, and irrelevant so as to proscribe the
operation of the implied admission rule in Sec. 2, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court.

▪ Case Law:

▪ Limos vs. Spouse Odones: The redundant and unnecessarily vexatious nature of
petitioner's request for admission rendered it ineffectual, futile, and

57
 irrelevant so as to proscribe the operation of the implied admission rule in
Sec. 2, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court.

o Remedy of the Person Making an Implied Admission:

▪ A party making an implied admission can file before the court a Motion to be
Relieved of Implied Admission.

• Judgment on the Pleadings

o A motion for judgment on the pleadings admits the truth of all the material and relevant
allegations of the opposing party and the judgment must rest on those allegations taken
together with such other allegations as are admitted in the pleadings.

o Case Law:

▪ Municipality of Tupi Us Antonio B. Betito: A motion for judgment on the pleadings

admits the truth of all the material and relevant allegations of the opposing party
and the judgment must rest on those allegations taken together with such other
allegations as are admitted in the pleadings.

• Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases

o In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those

allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received
in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

• Plea of Guilty to a Lesser Offense

o In case the accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense, is equivalent to a judicial admission of
an offense and all the ingredients necessarily included in the offense charged contained in
the former information.

o Case Law:

▪ During the arraignment, the court may allow the accused to make a plea to a lesser
offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged, subject to the:

▪ The plea to a lesser offense must be made by the accused with the consent
of the offended party and the prosecutor; and

• Plea of Guilty to a Capital Offense

o When the accused leads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry
into the voluntariness.

58
I. DNA Evidence Rule

• A. Matters Not Covered

o The Rules of Court apply to matters not specifically covered by the DNA Evidence Rule.
• B. Definition of Terms
o 1. Biological Sample: Organic material from a person's body susceptible to DNA testing,
including blood, saliva, body fluids, tissues, hairs, and bones.
o 2. DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid): Chain of molecules in every nucleated cell, unique to an
individual (except identical twins). It is the fundamental building block of a person's entire
genetic make-up.
▪ A person's DNA profile can determine their identity.
o 3. DNA Evidence: Totality of DNA profiles, results, and genetic information from DNA
testing of biological samples.
o 4. DNA Profile: Genetic information from DNA testing of a biological sample, clearly
identifiable as originating from a specific person.
o 5. DNA Testing: Verified scientific methods to extract DNA, generate profiles, and
compare information to determine if samples originate from the same or related persons.
▪ Includes direct identification and kinship analysis.
o 6. Probability of Parentage: Numerical estimate of the likelihood of parentage compared
to a random match in a given population.
• C. Application for DNA Testing Order
o 1. Requirements for Issuance:
▪ A relevant biological sample exists.
▪ The sample has not been previously subjected to the requested type of DNA
testing, or prior results require confirmation.
▪ The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique.
▪ The DNA testing can produce new, relevant information for the case resolution.
▪ Consideration of other factors potentially affecting accuracy or integrity of testing.
o 2. Court Discretion:
▪ The court may consider whether DNA testing is absolutely necessary.
▪ If there is already a preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA
test result would only be corroborative, the court may disallow DNA testing.
o 3. Motu Proprio application:
▪ The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any
person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing.
o 4. No Prior Court Order Needed:
▪ This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at
the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or
proceeding is commenced.
o 5. Prima Facie Evidence:
▪ During the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present
prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.
• D. DNA Testing Order
o 1. Actions Included:
▪ Order that biological samples be taken from any person or crime scene evidence.
▪ Impose reasonable conditions to protect the integrity of the sample, testing process,
and reliability of results.
▪ Require all parties to witness DNA testing if the sample size prevents confirmatory
testing.
o 2. Nature of Order: Immediately executory and not appealable.
o 3. Remedy: Any petition for certiorari will not stay implementation unless a higher court
issues an injunctive order.

59
 o 4. Not Automatic Admission: Granting a DNA testing application is not an automatic
admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a
result thereof.
• E. Refusal to Comply with DNA Testing
o 1. Possible Remedies:
▪ Enter a default judgment at the request of the appropriate party.
▪ If a trial is held, allow the disclosure of the fact of refusal unless good cause is
shown for not disclosing the fact of refusal.
• F. Post-Conviction DNA Testing
o 1. Availability: May be available without a prior court order to the prosecution or any
person with a final and executory judgment.
o 2. Requirements:
▪ A biological sample exists.
▪ The sample is relevant to the case.
▪ Testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the conviction
judgment.
o 3. Remedy if Results Are Favorable:
▪ The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
court of origin if the results of the post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to the
convict.
o 4. Courses of action of the court in case of favorable DNA Testing:
▪ Reverse or modify the judgment of conviction.
▪ Order the release of the convict unless continued detention is justified for a lawful
cause.
o 5. Where to file the petition:
▪ The Court of Appeals.
▪ The Supreme Court, or with any member of said courts.
o 6. Courses of action of the Supreme Court on the petition:
▪ Conduct a hearing thereon.
▪ Remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders.
• G. Assessment of Probative Value of DNA Evidence
o 1. Factors to Consider:
▪ The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they
were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples.
▪ The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with
the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests.
▪ The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards-
setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
▪ The reliability of the testing result.
o 2. DNA analysis based on contaminated specimen:
▪ DNA analysis based on a contaminated specimen is not conclusive.
o 3. Duty of parties and court in case of DNA Result:
▪ It shall be incumbent upon the parties who wish to avail of the same to offer the
results in accordance with the rules of evidence. Court shall assess the DNA results.
• H. Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology
o 1. Factors for Evaluation:
▪ The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the theory or
technique can be and has been tested.
▪ The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods.
▪ The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific
community.

60
 ▪ The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the correctness
of data generated.
▪ The existence of an appropriate reference population database.
▪ The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations used in
comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical
calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.
• I. Evaluation of DNA Testing Results
o 1. Factors for Consideration:
▪ The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of
mismatching DNA evidence.
▪ The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence
presented in the case.
▪ DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive
proof of non-paternity.
▪ If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the
DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence.
▪ If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a
disputable presumption of paternity.
• J. Confidentiality of DNA Profiles and Results
o 1. General Rule: DNA profiles and all results or other information obtained from DNA
testing shall be confidential. Except upon order of the court.
o 2. Persons Entitled to Copy:
▪ Person from whom the sample was taken.
▪ Lawyers representing parties in the case.
▪ Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action.
▪ Duly authorized law enforcement agencies.
▪ Other persons as determined by the court.
o 3. Effect of Unlawful Disclosure: Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any
information concerning a DNA profile without the proper court order shall be liable for
indirect contempt of the court wherein such DNA evidence was offered, presented or
sought to be offered and presented.
o 4. When Disclosure is Allowed: Where the person from whom the biological sample was
taken files a written verified request to the court that allowed the DNA testing for the
disclosure of the DNA profile of the person and all results or other information obtained
from the DNA testing, the same may be disclosed to the persons named in the written
verified request.
• K. Preservation of DNA Evidence
o 1. General Rule: The trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totality, including all
biological samples, DNA profiles and results or other genetic information obtained from
DNA testing.
o 2. Criminal Cases:
▪ For not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an offense; or,
▪ In case the accused is serving sentence, until such time as the accused has served his
sentence.
o 3. Other Cases: Until such time as the decision in the case where the DNA evidence was
introduced has become final and executory.
o 4. When Physical Destruction is Allowed:
▪ A court order to that effect has been secured; or
▪ The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to
the disposal of the DNA evidence.
• L. Applicability to Pending Cases

61
 o Except as provided in Secs. 6 and 10 hereof, this Rule shall apply to cases pending at the
time of its effectivity.

II. Case Law and Applications

• A. Application for DNA Testing: The court shall consider whether there is absolute necessity for
the DNA testing, and if there is already preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the
DNA test result would only be corroborative.
o During the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie
evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.
• B. Non-Paternity and Rape: Non-paternity of the accused through DNA testing does not negate
the crime of rape.
o Pregnancy and the subsequent birth of child are not elements of the crime of rape.
o Impregnation is not an element of rape.
• C. Issue of DNA Testing: It must be brought during the proceedings below otherwise waived.
• D. DNA Testing in Paternity/Filiation Cases: The court shall consider whether there is absolute
necessity for the DNA testing, and if there is already preponderance of evidence to establish
paternity and the DNA test result would only be corroborative.
• E. Failure to Produce Semen Specimen: Failure to produce the semen specimen is not a ground
for acquittal.
o There is no right for acquittal due to loss of DNA evidence.
• F. DNA Testing Order is Not Subject of Certiorari: Order of DNA testing is not subject of
certiorari under Rule 65 absence of grave abuse of discretion, but rather under Rule 45.
• G. Taking of DNA Samples: Taking of DNA samples from the party does not violate the right of
the accused against self-incrimination since it is only applicable in case of testimonial compulsion.
o Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a
paternity case will not violate the right against self-incrimination.
o This privilege applies only to evidence that is "communicative" in essence taken under
duress.
o The right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communication (testimonial evidence) from a defendant, not an
exclusion of evidence taken from his body when it may be material.
• H. Assessing Probative Value: Courts should consider how samples were collected, handled, the
possibility of contamination, procedures followed, standards, and qualifications of analysts.
• I. DNA Analysis Based on Contaminated Specimen: DNA analysis based on a contaminated
specimen is not conclusive.
• J. Confidentiality and Preservation: The trial court is further enjoined to observe the requirements
of confidentiality and preservation of the DNA evidence.

62
I. Documentary Evidence
• Definition: Documentary evidence consists of writings or any material containing letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols, sounds, or their equivalent, offered as proof of their contents. This
includes recordings and photographs (still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion
pictures, or videos).
• Types
o Electronic documents Information or representation of information, data, figures or
symbols by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may
be proved and affirmed. It may be presented to establish a right, extinguish an obligation or
prove a fact.
• Admissibility
o Actual damages must be substantiated by documentary evidence, like receipts, to prove
expenses incurred due to death or physical injuries.
o Documentary evidence is generally required to prove loss of earning capacity unless the
claimant is self-employed earning less than minimum wage, or a daily wage earner also
earning less than minimum wage.
o Absence of official receipts does not defeat prosecution of illegal recruitment if witnesses
positively testify to the accused's involvement.
o Marine insurance policy presentation is not indispensable for the insurer to recover from the
common carrier the insured value of lost cargo.
• Judicial Affidavit Rule: Documentary or object evidence must be attached to judicial affidavits for
pre-trial, preliminary conferences, or scheduled hearings.
II. Original Document Rule
• Definition: When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, or
photograph, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself.
• Purpose: To determine the exact wording, prevent fraud, and avoid erroneous interpretation of
documents. The written document is the best evidence of its contents.
• Requisites for Application
o The writing itself is the original.
o The contents of the writing are the subject of inquiry.
o The original document must be produced to prove its contents.
• Applicability: Applies only when the content of a document is the subject of inquiry.
o The rule does not apply if the issue is whether the document was actually executed or exists.
• Requirements: The highest available degree of proof, which is the document itself, must be
produced.
• Exceptions:
o Original Lost or Destroyed: If the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court without bad faith of the offeror, secondary evidence is admissible.
o Original in Adverse Party's Control: If the original is in the custody or control of the
party against whom the evidence is offered, and they fail to produce it after reasonable
notice, secondary evidence is admissible.
o Voluminous Documents: When the original consists of numerous accounts or documents
that cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact to be established is
only the general result of the whole, summaries may be presented.
o Public Record: When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or
recorded in a public office.
o Collateral Issue: When the original is not closely related to a controlling issue.
• Electronic Documents: An electronic document is considered the equivalent of an original if it's a
printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately.
o Picture images of ballots scanned and transmitted by PCOS machines are considered
"official ballots" and are original.

63
 o Facsimile transmissions are not considered original electronic evidence.
• Original of Document:
o An "original" is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by
the person executing or issuing it.
o A signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document executed at the same time as the original is
known as a duplicate original and may be introduced in evidence without accounting for the
non-production of the original.
• Duplicates: A counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, from the same matrix,
or by means of photography, mechanical or electronic re-recording, chemical reproduction, or other
equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
o A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless a genuine question is raised
about the authenticity of the original, or it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the
duplicate.
• Photocopies:
o A photocopy of a document is secondary evidence and is inadmissible unless the original
was lost, destroyed, or in the custody or control of the adverse party.
o An excluded photocopy cannot be substituted by the original for purposes of appeal unless
exceptions under the rules of court apply.
• Case Law and Doctrines
o People vs. Pabalan: Absence of receipts in illegal recruitment cases isn't fatal if there's
credible testimonial evidence.
o Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc: Marine insurance policy isn't
indispensable for insurer to recover from common carrier.
o Henry Ching Tiu, et al. vs. Philippine Banks of Communications: Written document is
the best evidence of its contents.
o Republic of the Philippines vs. Ma. Imelda "Imee" R. Marcos-Manotoc: Origin of
best evidence rule traced to Omychund vs. Barker.
o Skunac Corporation and Alfonso Enriquez vs. Roberto Sylianteng and Caesar
Sylianteng: The best evidence rule applies only when the content of such document is the
subject of the inquiry.
o Fortune Tobacco Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue: The original
document must be produced.
o Young Builders Corporation vs. Benson Industries, Inc: A photocopy admitted in
violation of the best evidence rule should be excluded and not accorded probative value.
o Philippine National Bank vs. James Cua: A promissory note is the best evidence to
prove the existence of a loan.
o PO2 Jessie Flores vs. People of the Philippines: Best evidence rule applies only when the
contents of the document are subject of inquiry.
o Anna Marie Gumabon vs. Philippine National Bank: A party cannot simply substitute
photocopies for originals without showing that exceptions apply.
o Mayor Emmanuel L. Maliksi vs. Commission on Elections and Homer Saquilayan:
The official ballot and its picture image are considered "original documents".
o Virginia Calimag vs. Heirs of Silvestra Macapaz: A canonical certificate of marriage is
not a public document, and its authenticity must be proven.
o SILKAIR (Singapore) PTE LTD. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue: Documents
not formally offered and admitted do not confer evidentiary weight.
o Edsa Shangri-La Hotel And Resort, Inc. vs. BF Corporation: Conditions for presenting
secondary evidence when the original document is with the adverse party.
o Compañia Maritima vs. Allied Free Workers Union: Summaries must be supported by
original records available for examination.
o Dimaguila vs. Jose and Sonia Monteiro: Public documents can be proven by a certified
copy of the original.

64
III. Secondary Documentary Evidence
• Definition: Any evidence other than the original document itself.
• When Original Document is Unavailable:
o If the original is lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced, the offeror may prove its contents
by a copy, recital of contents in an authentic document, or testimony of witnesses, in that
order.
o The offeror must prove the execution or existence of the original, the cause of its
unavailability, and the absence of bad faith.
• When Original Document is in Adverse Party's Control or Possession:
o The adverse party must have reasonable notice to produce the document.
o If the adverse party fails to produce the document after notice and satisfactory proof of its
existence, secondary evidence may be presented.
• Summaries:
o When documents, records, or accounts are voluminous and cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time, the contents may be presented as a chart, summary, or calculation.
o The originals must be available for examination or copying by the adverse party.
• Public Record:
o When the original is in the custody of a public officer or recorded in a public office, its
contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by that officer.
• Party Calling for Document:
o A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects it is not obliged to offer it
as evidence.
IV. Parol Evidence Rule
• Definition: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon. No evidence of such terms is admissible other than the
contents of the written agreement.
• Purpose: To prevent varying the terms of a written agreement.
• Exceptions: Evidence may be presented to modify, explain, or add to the terms of a written
agreement if a party puts in issue in a verified pleading:
o An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement.
o The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties.
o The validity of the written agreement.
o The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.
• Rationale: When parties reduce their agreement to writing, it's presumed the writing contains all the
terms of the agreement.
• Case Law and Doctrines:
o Fernando Manancol Jr. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines: Failure to timely
object to parol evidence is deemed a waiver.
o Sps. Manuel and Victoria Salimbangon vs. Sps. Santos and Erlinda Tan: Exceptions
to the parol evidence rule.
o Shemberg Marketing Corporation vs. Citibank: Application of exceptions to the parol
evidence rule.
o Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Secretary of DPWH vs. Jose Gamir-
Consuelo Diaz Heirs Association, Inc: Requirements for parol evidence to be admitted.
o Republic of the Philippines and Housing and Urban Development Coordinating
Council vs. Gonzalo Roque, Jr., et al: Parol evidence rule prevents varying the terms of
the agreement.

65
I. Rules of Admissibility
• A. Parol Evidence Rule
o 1. Definition: Prevents the alteration, contradiction, or addition to the terms of a written
agreement using prior or contemporaneous oral evidence that would vary the written
agreement.
o 2. General Rule: No evidence of contractual terms is admissible other than the contract
itself.
o 3. Purpose: To prevent the destruction of obligations of written contracts with oral
evidence.
• B. Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule
o 1. Circumstances for Admissibility: A party may present evidence to modify, explain, or
add to the terms of the agreement if any of the following are put in issue in the pleading:
▪ Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement.
▪ Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the
parties.
▪ Validity of the written agreement.
▪ Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after
the execution of the written agreement.
o 2. Requirements for Admissibility:
▪ The existence of any of the four exceptions must be put in issue in a party's pleading
or has not been objected to by the adverse party.
▪ The parol evidence presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed
by the presenting party.
• C. Specific Exceptions and Case Laws
o 1. Intrinsic Ambiguity, Mistake, or Imperfection
▪ a. Ambiguity: When a word, phrase, or the general sense of a document could
apply to more than one thing or event.
▪ b. Kinds of Ambiguities:
▪ Latent ambiguity: Clear on its face but uncertain in application due to
collateral matters.
▪ Patent or extrinsic ambiguity: Apparent on the face of the writing, requiring
something to be added to ascertain the meaning.
▪ Intermediate ambiguity: Sensible words with settled meanings but admit
two interpretations based on the subject matter.
▪ c. Falsa Demonstration Non Nocet: An incorrect subordinate description is
rejected as surplusage if another description is complete and sufficient.
▪ d. Mistake: An error in action or a blunder.
▪ e. Requisites for Mistake Exception:
▪ The mistake should be one of fact.
▪ The mistake must be common to both parties.
▪ It must be alleged and proven by clear and convincing evidence.
▪ f. Case Law: Extrinsic evidence is admissible to address ambiguity but cannot
incorporate additional conditions unless there is fraud or mistake.
o 2. Failure to Reflect True Intention
▪ a. Requirement: The party must put in issue in a verified pleading that the written
agreement fails to express the true intention of the parties.
▪ b. Case Law: Failure to expressly plead that the deeds of sale did not reflect the
parties' intentions makes parol evidence inadmissible.
▪ c. Notarization: Notarization does not accord a document incontrovertibility if it
does not contain the parties' true intentions.
o 3. Validity of the Written Agreement

66
 ▪ a. Application: The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply when the purpose of
introducing evidence is to show the invalidity of the contract.
o 4. Existence of Other Terms
▪ a. Overcoming Presumption: Parol evidence must be clear, convincing, and of
sufficient credibility to overturn the written agreement.
▪ b. Verbal Agreements: Proof of a verbal agreement that tends to vary the terms of
a written agreement is inadmissible.
▪ c. Determining Separate Oral Agreement: The subject of the oral agreement
should not be closely connected with the subject of the writing.
• D. Distinctions Between Parol Evidence Rule and Original Document Rule
o 1. Availability of Original Document:
▪ Parol Evidence Rule: The original document is available in court.
▪ Original Document Rule: The original document is not available in court.
o 2. Purpose:
▪ Parol Evidence Rule: Prohibits varying the terms of the written agreement.
▪ Original Document Rule: Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary or secondary
evidence.
o 3. Parties Involved:
▪ Parol Evidence Rule: Involves parties to the written agreement.
▪ Original Document Rule: Involves any parties to the action.
II. Interpretation of Documents
• A. Rules of Interpretation
o 1. Legal Meaning: The language of a writing is interpreted according to its legal meaning in
the place of execution, unless otherwise intended.
o 2. Effect to All Provisions: Construction should give effect to all provisions, if possible.
o 3. Intention of Parties: The intention of the parties is to be pursued.
o 4. General vs. Particular Provisions: A particular provision is paramount to the general
one if they are inconsistent.
o 5. Circumstances: The circumstances under which the instrument was made, including the
situation of the subject and the parties, may be shown.
o 6. Peculiar Signification of Terms: Terms are presumed to have been used in their
primary and general acceptation.
o 7. Written Words vs. Printed Form: Written words control printed form if they are
inconsistent.
o 8. Experts and Interpreters: Used when the characters are difficult to decipher, or the
language is not understood by the court.
o 9. Preference Between Two Interpretations: The sense in which one party supposed the
other understood it prevails.
o 10. Natural Right: If equally susceptible to two interpretations, one in favor of natural right
is adopted.
o 11. Usage: An instrument may be construed according to usage to determine its true
character.
• B. Civil Code Provisions on Interpretation of Contracts
o 1. Clear Terms: Literal meaning controls if the terms are clear.
o 2. Intention of Parties: Shall prevail over words that appear contrary to their intentions.
o 3. Contemporaneous and Subsequent Acts: Considered to judge the intention of the
contracting parties.
o 4. General Terms: Shall not comprehend things that are distinct from those intended.
o 5. Stipulation with Several Meanings: Understood as bearing the import most adequate to
render it effectual.
o 6. Interpretation Together: Various stipulations are interpreted together.

67
 o 7. Words with Different Significations: Understood in keeping with the nature and object
of the contract.
o 8. Usage or Custom: Borne in mind in the interpretation of ambiguities.
o 9. Obscure Words: Interpretation shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity.
o 10. Impossible to Settle Doubts:
▪ Gratuitous contract: Least transmission of rights and interests shall prevail.
▪ Onerous contract: Doubt settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests.
▪ Principal object of the contract: The contract shall be null and void.
o 11. Rule 123 of the Rules of Court: Principles observed in the construction of contracts.
• C. Reformation of Instruments
o 1. When Available: When there is ambiguity, imperfection, mistake, or the true intention of
the parties is not reflected in the written agreement.
o 2. Legal Basis: Articles 1359-1365 of the New Civil Code.
o 3. When Not Proper:
▪ If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident prevented a meeting of the minds,
the proper remedy is annulment of the contract.
▪ Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed.
▪ Wills.
▪ When the real agreement is void.
▪ When one of the parties has brought an action to enforce the instrument.
o 4. Who May Ask: Either party or their successors in interest, if the mistake was mutual;
otherwise, upon petition of the injured party, or his heirs and assigns.
III. Testimonial Evidence
• A. Basic Concepts
o 1. Testimonial Evidence: Oral evidence given by the witness on the witness stand or in any
proceeding.
o 2. Testimony: A declaration made by a witness under oath or affirmation.
• B. Kinds of Testimonies
o 1. Affirmative Testimony: A witness saw, heard, or did a particular thing at a specific time
and place.
o 2. Expert Testimony: Testimony requiring special knowledge, skill, experience, or training.
o 3. Negative Testimony: A witness did not see or hear what is claimed to have occurred.
o 4. Positive Testimony: A witness did see or hear what is claimed to have occurred.
o 5. False Testimony: A false declaration under oath against a person, knowing it to be false.
o 6. Self-Serving Testimony: An extrajudicial statement of a party, favorable to him, which is
being urged for admission to court during the trial.
o 7. Hearsay Testimony: Testimony offered against a party who had no opportunity to
examine the witness.
• C. Kinds of Witnesses
o 1. Competent Witness: Not legally disqualified from testifying.
o 2. Incompetent Witness: Disqualified from testifying.
o 3. Biased Witness: Tends to exaggerate.
o 4. Character Witness: Testifies to the good reputation, integrity, and qualifications of a
person.
o 5. Credible Witness: Testimony is worthy of credit and belief.
o 6. Honest Witness: Gives truthful testimony.
o 7. Dishonest Witness: Professes to remember things upon which he cannot readily
contradict.
o 8. Instrumental Witness: Attests to the signature and proper execution of a will.
o 9. Plausible Witness: Recreates the situation at the time of the original incident.
o 10. State Witness: An accomplice who gives evidence in a criminal proceeding.

68
 o 11. Child Witness: Any person below the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of giving
testimony.
o 12. Expert Witness: Acquired particular knowledge or experience upon matters of technical
knowledge and skill.
o 13. Hostile or Adverse Witness: Manifests so much hostility or prejudice that the party
who has called him is allowed to cross-examine him.
o 14. Qualified Witness: Can perceive, make known their perception, and possess all
qualifications and none of the disqualifications.
o 15. Disqualified Witness: Excluded by law or the rules to give testimony.
• D. Qualifications of Witnesses
o 1. General Rule: All persons who can perceive and make their perception known to others
may be witnesses.
o 2. Non-Disqualification: Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or
conviction of a crime (unless otherwise provided by law) are not grounds for
disqualification.
o 3. Exceptions to Non-Disqualification: A person shall be disqualified to be a witness in
case of conviction involving the crimes of:
▪ Perjury.
▪ Falsification of public or private documents.
▪ False testimony.
o 4. Competency vs. Credibility:
▪ Competency: Refers to the qualification of the witness.
▪ Credibility: Refers to the disposition and intention of the witness to tell the truth.
o 5. Totality of Circumstances Test: Ascertains a witness's credibility by considering:
▪ Opportunity to view the malefactor at the time of the crime.
▪ Degree of attention at that time.
▪ Accuracy of any prior description given by the witness.
▪ Level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification.
▪ Length of time between the crime and the identification.
▪ Suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
• E. Competency of a Child Witness
o 1. Requisites: A child witness must possess the following at the time of giving testimony:
▪ Capacity to distinguish right from wrong or comprehend the obligation of an oath.
▪ Capacity to receive correct impressions.
▪ Capacity to relate those facts truly to the court.
o 2. Mental Retardation: A mental retardate may be a credible witness.
• F. Presumption of Competence of a Child Witness
o 1. General Rule: Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness.
o 2. Competency Examination: The court shall conduct a competency examination of a
child when it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the
truth in court.
o 3. Proof of Necessity: A party seeking a competency examination must present proof of
necessity.
o 4. Age: Age alone is not a sufficient basis for a competency examination.
o 5. Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies on the party challenging the child's
competence.
o 6. Persons Allowed: Only certain individuals are allowed to attend a competency
examination.
o 7. Conduct of Examination: Examination shall be conducted only by the judge.
o 8. Developmentally Appropriate Questions: Questions must be appropriate to the age
and developmental level of the child.

69
 o 9. Continuing Duty: The court has a continuous duty to assess the competence of the child
throughout his testimony.
• G. Testimony Based on Personal Knowledge
o 1. General Rule: A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge.
o 2. Rationale: The party against whom the evidence is presented is deprived of the right to
cross-examine the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed.
o 3. Essential Prerequisite: Personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive prerequisite for
accepting testimonial evidence.
o 4. Independent Relevant Statement: When what is relevant is the fact that such a
statement has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply.
IV. Disqualified Witnesses
• A. Disqualification by Reason of Marriage
o 1. General Rule: During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse.
o 2. Exceptions:
▪ In a civil case by one against the other.
▪ In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's
direct descendants or ascendants.
o 3. Requisites:
▪ The marriage is valid and existing at the time of the offer of the testimony.
▪ The other spouse is a party to the action.
o 4. Rationale: To guard the security and confidences of private life and prevent domestic
disunion and unhappiness.
• B. Disqualification by Reason of Privileged Communication
o 1. General Rule: Certain persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence.
o 2. Protected Relationships:
▪ a. Husband and Wife: Cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to
any communication received in confidence during the marriage.
▪ b. Attorney and Client: An attorney cannot be examined without the consent of
the client as to any communication made by the client.
▪ c. Physician, Psychotherapist, and Patient: Cannot be examined in civil cases
without the patient's consent.
▪ d. Minister, Priest, and Penitent: Cannot be examined without the consent of the
affected person.
▪ e. Public Officer: Cannot be examined as to communications made in official
confidence if the public interest would suffer.
o 3. Privileged Communication Between Husband and Wife:
▪ a. Rationale: For the preservation of peace in the family and maintenance of the
sacred institution of marriage.
▪ b. Requisites:
▪ Valid marital relations.
▪ Confidential communication during the marriage.
▪ No consent to the testimony.
▪ c. Exceptions:
▪ Civil case by one against the other spouse.
▪ Criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other spouse or the
latter's direct ascendants or descendants.
▪ Communication made prior to the marriage.
▪ Communication not confidential in character.
▪ Communication overheard by a third person.
▪ Dying declaration of one spouse to another.

70
o 4. Privileged Communication Between Attorney and Client:
▪ a. Definition of Attorney: Persons who by license are officers of the court and
who are empowered to appear, prosecute, and defend.
▪ b. Requisites:
▪ A professional relationship exists.
▪ The communication was made in the course of professional employment.
▪ The client has not given consent to the disclosure.

71
II. Disqualifications Based on Privileged Communication
• Attorney-Client Privilege
o An attorney is an officer of the court empowered to represent others with specific legal
duties.
o Requisites for Disqualification:
▪ There must be an attorney-client relationship.
▪ The privilege must concern confidential communication during professional
employment.
▪ The client must not have consented to the testimony of the attorney or their staff.
o When the Relationship Begins: It starts with a preliminary consultation, even without
payment.
o Professional Employment: Occurs when an attorney is employed as a legal advisor to
provide advice on rights and obligations.
o Coverage of Disqualification:
▪ Verbal statements.
▪ Documents and papers entrusted to the attorney by the client.
▪ Facts learned by the attorney from the client.
o Exceptions to Disqualification:
▪ Future Crime-Fraud Exception: If the lawyer's services were obtained to enable a
crime or fraud, the communication is not privileged.
▪ Claims Against Same Deceased Client: Communication relevant to issues
between parties claiming through the same deceased client is not privileged.
▪ Self-Defense Exception: Communication relevant to a breach of duty by either
the lawyer or the client is not privileged.
▪ Lawyer-Attesting Witness: Communication relevant to an attested document
where the lawyer is a witness is not privileged.
▪ Joint Clients: Communication relevant to a common interest between joint clients
is not privileged in actions between them, unless otherwise agreed.
▪ Other exceptions:
▪ When the communication is intended to be made public.
▪ When the communication is intended to be communicated to others.
▪ When the communication was received a third person who is not acting in
behalf or as agent of the client.
▪ When the communication was made in the presence of a third party who is
a stranger to the attorney and client.
▪ When there is a waiver on the part of the client.
▪ Action filed by the client against the attorney.
▪ Dying declaration made by the client to the attorney.
o Waiver of Privilege: Can be express or implied, such as failure to object.
o Implied Waiver Instances:
▪ Failure to object to attorney testimony.
▪ Giving evidence on the privileged communication.
▪ Calling or cross-examining the attorney about the communication.
o Opportune Time to Invoke Privilege:
▪ When the attorney is called to disclose professional communication.
▪ When the client is being made to make a disclosure.
o Duration of Privilege: Continues even after the attorney-client relationship ends or after the
client's death.
o Doctrine of Absolute Privileged Communication: Actions and utterances in judicial
proceedings have absolute privilege.
▪ Extends to preliminary investigations and steps leading to official judicial action.
▪ Remains regardless of defamatory content or malice if relevant to the inquiry.

72
 ▪ Courts are liberal regarding relevancy.
• Patient-Doctor/Psychotherapist Privilege
o A physician or psychotherapist cannot be examined in a civil case about confidential
communications made for diagnosis or treatment without the patient's consent.
o Applies to those reasonably believed to be authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy.
o Also applies to family members participating in diagnosis or treatment under direction.
o Definition of Psychotherapist:
▪ A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the treatment of mental or
emotional conditions.
▪ A licensed psychologist similarly engaged.
o Requisites for Application:
▪ Claimed in a civil case.
▪ Person against whom claimed is a physician, psychotherapist, or someone
reasonably believed to be so.
▪ Information acquired while attending to the patient professionally for diagnosis or
treatment.
▪ Information is necessary for professional capacity.
▪ Information is confidential and could harm the patient's reputation if disclosed.
o Meaning of "Attending to the Patient in His Professional Capacity": For diagnosis or
treatment of physical, mental, or emotional conditions.
o Scope of Application:
▪ Testimony of the physician or psychotherapist.
▪ Affidavits, certificates, and medical records containing privileged matters.
o Duration of Privilege: Applies during and after the physician-patient relationship, even after
death.
o Exceptions to Application:
▪ Patient consent.
▪ Criminal case by patient against doctor.
▪ Communication not given in confidence.
▪ Irrelevant to professional employment.
▪ Made for unlawful purpose.
▪ Intended to be made public.
▪ Waiver by law or contract.
▪ Case by the patient against the physician.
• Priest-Penitent Privilege
o A minister, priest, or person reasonably believed to be so cannot be examined about
communications or confessions made in their professional character, within the church's
disciplinary context, without the affected person's consent.
o Requisites for Application:
▪ Priest, minister, or person reasonably believed to be so, and a penitent.
▪ Confession, communication, or advice given.
▪ Made in a professional character within the church's discipline.
o Reason for the Privilege: To protect the confessional institution.
o Coverage: Only confessions of a penitential character for obtaining pardon and spiritual
advice.
o Exceptions to Application:
▪ Penitent consents.
▪ Third person overhearing.
▪ Communication not privileged or made outside professional character.
▪ Failure to object in court.
▪ Examination on the privileged communication.
• Public Officer Privilege (State Secrets)

73
 o A public officer cannot be examined about communications made in official confidence if it
would harm public interest.
o Requisites for Application:
▪ Official confidential communication.
▪ Made to a public officer.
▪ Disclosure would affect public interest.
o Test of Confidentiality: Whether disclosure may endanger public interest, safety, and
security.
o Covers identity of informant.
o Exceptions:
▪ Identity already disclosed.
▪ Disclosure essential to assure a fair determination.
o Who Determines: The court where the case is pending decides if disclosure affects public
interest.
o Duration: Remains privileged even in the hands of a third person if original parties took
precautions to protect confidentiality.
• Presidential Privilege Communication
o Governmental privilege against public disclosure of state secrets related to military,
diplomatic, and national security matters.
o Includes Presidential conversations, correspondences, and discussions in closed-door
Cabinet meetings.
• Deliberative Process Privilege
o Protects open, frank discussion between subordinates and superiors concerning
administrative action.
o Closely related to presidential communications privilege.
o Protects public disclosure of information that can compromise the quality of agency
decisions.
• Confidential Information Rule
o Confidential information includes data related to mediation or arbitration, intended not to be
disclosed, or obtained with a reasonable expectation of non-disclosure.
o Includes communications during dispute resolution, statements made during mediation, and
pleadings filed in arbitration.
• Privileged Communication on Electronic Evidence
o The confidential character of a privileged communication is not lost solely because it is in
electronic form.
• Privileged Matter in Taking of Deposition
o A deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the
subject of the pending action.
o Examination should not cover matters that are otherwise privileged.
• Privileged Matters in Production and Inspection of Documents and Things
o The court may order a party to produce documents for inspection and copying, provided
they are not privileged.
• Confidential Matters During Judicial Dispute Resolution
o All proceedings during court-annexed mediation and judicial dispute resolution are
confidential.
• Confidential Matters in Administrative Adoption
o All petitions, documents, records, and papers relating to administrative adoption proceedings
are strictly confidential.
o Disclosure allowed only upon written request of the adoptee or their guardian.
• Confidential Nature of DNA Profiles and Results
o DNA profiles and results are confidential except upon court order.

74
 o Only released to specific individuals such as the person from whom the sample was taken,
lawyers, law enforcement, etc.
o Unlawful disclosure can result in indirect contempt of court.
• Confidentiality of Information under the Philippine Competition Act
o Confidential business information submitted during inquiries or investigations shall not be
disclosed.
o Exceptions:
▪ The notifying entity consents to the disclosure.
▪ Disclosure is required by law.
▪ Valid court order.
o Identity of informants is expressly waived.
• Confidential Information under the Data Privacy Act
o Protection for journalists and their sources: Journalists cannot be compelled to reveal
sources.
o Law on Sensitive Personal Information or Privileged Information:
▪ Processing of sensitive personal information and privileged information is generally
prohibited.
▪ Exceptions:
▪ Data subject has given consent.
▪ Processing is provided by existing laws.
▪ Necessary to protect life and health.
▪ Necessary for noncommercial objectives of public organizations.
▪ Necessary for medical treatment.
▪ Necessary for protection of lawful rights in court proceedings.
o Extension of Privileged Communication: Personal information controllers may invoke
privileged communication over information they lawfully control or process.
• Confidentiality of Proceedings under R.A. 6981 (Witness Protection Act)
o All proceedings involving applications for admission into the Witness Protection Program
are confidential.
o Violation of confidentiality is punishable by imprisonment and deprivation of public office.
III. Testimonial Privilege
• Exempts a witness from disclosing certain knowledge in court.
• Applicable in all types of cases.
o Parental and Filial Privilege
▪ No person shall be compelled to testify against parents, direct ascendants, children,
or direct descendants.
▪ Exceptions:
▪ Testimony is indispensable in a crime against that person.
▪ Testimony by one parent against the other.
o Privilege Relating to Trade Secrets
▪ A person cannot be compelled to testify about a trade secret unless non-disclosure
would conceal fraud or injustice.
▪ The court must take protective measures to balance interests and justice when
disclosure is directed.
IV. Admission and Confession
• Admission: An act, declaration, or omission of a party regarding a relevant fact that can be used as
evidence against them.
• Confession: An acknowledgment of one's guilt or liability.
o Admission of a Party
▪ An act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him.
▪ Kinds of Admission:

75
 ▪ Judicial Admission: Made in connection with a judicial proceeding.
▪ Extrajudicial Admission: Made outside the context of the case.
▪ Verbal admission: Made orally in open court or proceeding.
▪ Written admission: Made in writing.
▪ Express admission: Made in a definite written and unequivocal terms.
▪ Implied admission: May be inferred from the facts, declaration or omission
of a party.
▪ Adoptive admission: Admission by a person merely adopting the admission
made by another.
▪ Admissions against interest must be presented, authenticated, and offered in
evidence.
▪ Self-Serving Evidence: A statement intended to serve one's own interest.
▪ Distinctions between Admission and Confession:
▪ Admission is a statement of fact, confession is acknowledgment of guilt.
▪ Admission can be express or implied, confession is always express or tacit.
▪ Admission is broader in scope, confession is limited to acknowledgment of
fault.
▪ Admission can be made by any party, confession only by the accused.
▪ Distinctions between Admission and Declaration Against Interest:
▪ Declaration against interest is against proprietary or pecuniary interest,
admission need not be.
▪ Declaration against interest is made by someone deceased or unable to
testify, admission is made by a party.
▪ Declaration against interest is made ante litem motam, admission can be
made anytime.
o Admission in an Amended Pleading
▪ Admissions in superseded pleadings may be offered as evidence against the pleader.
o Offer of Compromise
▪ In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of liability and is not
admissible.
▪ In criminal cases, an offer of compromise may be received as an implied admission
of guilt, except in cases involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be
compromised.
▪ Plea of guilty later withdrawn or unaccepted offer of plea to a lesser offense is not
admissible.
▪ An offer to pay medical expenses is not admissible as proof of liability.
o Nolo Contendere under the Philippine Competition Act
▪ A plea of Nolo Contendere, where the entity does not accept nor deny responsibility
but agrees to accept punishment, cannot be used to prove liability in a civil suit.
o Admission by Third Party ("Res Inter Alios Acta Rule")
▪ The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of
another, except as provided.
▪ Extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and not admissible
against co-accused.
▪ Exceptions: Extrajudicial confession may be admissible against a co-accused if there
is other circumstantial evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

76
I. Rules of Admissibility (Rule 130)
• A. Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
o Defined: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of
another.
o General Rule: An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is
inadmissible against co-accused because it is considered hearsay against them.
o Rationale: It would be unjust for a person to be bound by the acts of unauthorized strangers.
o Case Law: Tamargo vs. Awingan explains the reason for this rule.
• B. Exceptions to "Res Inter Alios Acta Rule"
o 1. Admission of a Co-Partner or Agent (Sec. 30, Rule 130)
▪ The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by a party to make a
statement concerning the subject, within the scope of their authority, and during the
existence of the partnership or agency, may be given as evidence against such party.
▪ Requisites for admissibility:
▪ Partnership, agency, or joint interest is established by evidence other than
the act or declaration.
▪ The partner or agent was authorized to make the statement concerning the
subject or within the scope of their authority.
▪ The act or declaration was made during the existence of the partnership or
agency.
▪ Substantive bases: Arts. 487, 1222, 1803, 1910 of the New Civil Code.
▪ Civil Code Provisions:
▪ Art. 1803: Partners are considered agents.
▪ Art. 1910: The principal must comply with obligations the agent contracted
within the scope of their authority.
▪ Art. 487: A co-owner may bring an action in ejectment.
▪ Art. 1222: A solidary debtor may avail themselves of defenses derived from
the nature of the obligation and those personal to them.
o 2. Admission by Co-Conspirator (Sec. 31, Rule 130)
▪ The act or declaration of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy and during
its existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
▪ Definition of Conspiracy: Combination between two or more persons to commit
an unlawful act.
▪ Requisites for admissibility:
▪ Conspiracy is first proved by evidence other than the admission itself.
▪ The admission relates to the common object.
▪ It was made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.
▪ Case Law: Harold V. Tamargo Us. Romulo Awingan, et al. outlines requirements.
▪ Important points regarding conspiracy
▪ Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act without cooperation
is insufficient to prove conspiracy.
▪ If a declarant repeats an extrajudicial admission in court and the other
accused has the opportunity to cross-examine, the admission becomes
admissible against both accused.
▪ Admission by a conspirator is treated as an extrajudicial admission and
doesn't apply to testimony on the witness stand.
▪ As a general rule, admission by a conspirator after the conspiracy is over is
not admissible, with exceptions:
▪ If the admission was made in the presence of the co-conspirator
who expressly or impliedly agrees.

77
 ▪ When facts stated in the admission are confirmed in individual
extrajudicial confessions.
▪ When it is made as circumstances to determine the credibility of a
witness.
▪ As circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the co-
conspirator's participation.
▪ Principle of Interlocking Confession: Extrajudicial confessions made
independently without collusion, identical in material respects, and confirmatory of
each other are admissible as circumstantial evidence against co-accused.
▪ Quantum of Evidence: Conspiracy must be proven by the same quantum of
evidence as the felony.
▪ Other points on conspiracy:
▪ Mere presence at the scene is insufficient.
▪ Flight with other accused is not conclusive proof, but may lead to liability as
an accomplice.
▪ Common criminal purpose is necessary.
▪ There must be adequate proof that the malefactors agreed and decided to
commit a felony.
▪ Totality of Evidence Rule: The totality of evidence indicates the probability that
the accused lent moral and material support.
▪ Unity of Objective: Establishes conspiracy.
▪ Direct Evidence: Not required; conspiracy can be proven through the series of
acts.
o 3. Admission by Privies (Sec. 32, Rule 130)
▪ Where one derives title to property from another, the latter's act, declaration, or
omission in relation to the property is evidence against the former while the latter
was holding the title.
▪ Requisites for admissibility:
▪ Relation of privity between the party and the declarant.
▪ Admission was made by the declarant as predecessor-in-interest while
holding title to the property.
▪ The admission is in relation to the property.
o 4. Admission by Silence (Sec. 33, Rule 130)
▪ An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of
a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to
call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him or her
to do so, may be given in evidence against him.
▪ Requisites for admissibility:
▪ There must be an act or declaration.
▪ The party heard or observed the act or declaration.
▪ Opportunity to deny it.
▪ Understood the statement.
▪ Opportunity to object.
▪ Facts were within their knowledge.
▪ The information is material to the issue.
▪ Case Law: Spouses Cipriano Pamplona and Bibiana Intac vs. Spouses Lilia Cueto and
Vedasto Cueto.
▪ Silence during custodial investigation is an exercise of the right to remain silent.
• C. Confession (Sec. 34, Rule 130) *Defined: Declaration of an accused acknowledging guilt of the
offense charged or of any offense necessarily included therein. * Nature of Judicial Confession:
Constitutes evidence of a high order. * Classifications: * Judicial: Made before a court in which the
case is pending. * Extrajudicial: Made in any other place or occasion. * Requisites for

78
 Admissibility: * Express and categorical acknowledgment of guilt. * Facts admitted must be
constitutive of a criminal offense. * Given voluntarily and intelligently. * No violation of
constitutional rights. * Constitutional Provisions: * Right to be informed of the right to remain
silent and to have counsel. * No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. * Right against self-incrimination. * Burden of
Proof: Rests on the defense to prove it was involuntary. * Rationale for Inadmissibility of
Involuntary Confession: Unreliable, humanitarian considerations, and violative of the right to self-
incrimination. * Binding Effect of Extrajudicial Confession: Generally only on the accused,
unless the co-accused impliedly acquiesced.
• D. Previous Conduct as Evidence (Sec. 35, Rule 130)
o Evidence of doing or not doing something at one time is not admissible to prove doing or
not doing the same thing at another time.
o Exceptions: May be received to prove specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system,
scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
o Case Law: Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Custodio explains the rationale.
o Evidentiary value is not necessary for determining venue for filing criminal information.
• E. Unaccepted Offer (Sec. 36, Rule 130) *An offer in writing to pay money or deliver an
instrument or property, if rejected without valid cause, is equivalent to actual production and tender.
* Requirements of a Valid Offer: * Must be made in writing. * Must be followed by consignation
of the amount in court. * Reason for the Rule: Complements the law on tender of payment under
Art. 1256 of the New Civil Code. * Instances where Consignation Alone Produces the Effect of
Offer of Payment: * Creditor is absent or unknown. * Creditor is incapacitated. * Creditor refuses to
give a receipt. * Two or more persons claim the same right. * The title of the obligation has been lost.
* Tender of Payment a Condition Precedent: Sec. 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments to the
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
II. Testimonial Knowledge and Hearsay Evidence Rule
• A. Basic Concept of Testimonial Knowledge
o Testimony is generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay is excluded.
• B. Hearsay Evidence (Sec. 37, Rule 130)
o Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying, offered to
prove the truth of the facts asserted.
o A statement is an oral or written assertion or non-verbal conduct intended as an assertion.
o Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in the Rules.
o When a statement is not hearsay: if the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-
examination concerning the statement, and the statement is:
▪ Inconsistent with the declarant's testimony and was given under oath.
▪ Consistent with the declarant's testimony and rebuts a charge of recent fabrication.
▪ One of identification of a person made after perceiving them.
o Rationale: The party against whom the evidence is presented is deprived of the right to
cross-examine.
o The rule applies to both oral and documentary evidence if its probative value isn't based on
the witness's personal knowledge.
o Personal Knowledge: A substantive prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence.
o Evidentiary Value: Hearsay evidence has no probative value.
o Theory of the Hearsay Rule: The credit of the assertor becomes the basis of inference.
o Affidavits: Generally considered hearsay evidence.
o Independent Relevant Statement: Relevant to the fact in issue regardless of whether they
are true or not.
o Statements from which facts may be inferred without violating the Hearsay Evidence
Rule:
▪ State of mind.
▪ Mental condition.

79
 ▪ Physical condition.
▪ Identification.
▪ Lack of credibility of the witness.
III. Exceptions to Hearsay Evidence Rule
• A. Exceptions:
o Dying declaration (Sec. 38).
o Statement of a deceased or person of unsound mind (Sec. 39).
o Declaration against interest (Sec. 40).
o Act or declaration about pedigree (Sec. 41).
o Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree (Sec. 42).
o Common reputation (Sec. 43).
o Res gestae (Sec. 44).
o Records of regularly conducted business activity (Sec. 45).
o Entries in the official records (Sec. 46).
o Commercial list and the like (Sec. 47).
o Learned Treatise (Sec. 48).
o Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding (Sec. 49).
o Residual exceptions (Sec. 50).
o Hearsay exception in child abuse cases.
o Inapplicability of the Hearsay Evidence Rule under the Electronic Document Rule.
• B. Dying Declaration (Sec. 38, Rule 130)
o The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of an impending death,
may be received in any case where his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the
cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
o Definition: An ante-mortem statement about the cause and circumstances of the declarant's
death, made when aware of impending death.
o Requisites:
▪ Concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death.
▪ Made under the consciousness of an impending death.
▪ Declarant is a competent witness.
▪ Offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide where the declarant is
the victim.
o Nature: An exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule.
o Grounds: Necessity and trustworthiness.
o Kinds: Oral, written, or through signs.
o How to Attack: On the ground that any of the requisites for admissibility are not present.
o A declaration made under the consciousness of an impending death can be admitted as a
dying declaration and part of res gestae.
o Test: Whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looks on death as
certainly impending.
o A declaration of a person under the consciousness of an impending death may be subject to
multiple purposes for its admissibility.
• C. Statement of a Decedent or Person of Unsound Mind (Sec. 39, Rule 130)
o In an action against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased
person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of
such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, where a party or assignor of
a party or a person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifies on a matter of fact
occurring before the death of the deceased person or before the person became of unsound
mind, any statement of the deceased or the person of unsound mind, may be received in
evidence if the statement was made upon the personal knowledge of the deceased or the
person of unsound mind at a time when the matter had been recently perceived by him or

80
 her and while his or her recollection was clear. Such statement, however, is inadmissible if
made under circumstances indicating its lack of trustworthiness.
o Requisites for "Dead Man's Statute" to apply:
▪ The witness offered for examination is the party plaintiff or assignor of a party to a
case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted.
▪ The case is against an executor or administrator or other representative of a
deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind.
▪ The case is upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or
against such person of unsound mind, or cannot testify.
▪ The testimony to be given is on any matter of fact occurring before the death of
such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
• D. Declaration Against Interest (Sec. 40, Rule 130)
o The declaration made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the
declarant, if the fact is asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary
to declarant's own interest, that a reasonable person in his or her position would not have
made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against
himself or herself or his or her successors in interest and against third persons.
o A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the
accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the
trustworthiness of the statement.
o Requisites:
▪ That the declarant is dead or unable to testify.
▪ That the declaration relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant.
▪ That at the time he made said declaration, declarant was aware that the same was
contrary to interest.
▪ That the declarant had no motive to falsify and, believed such declaration to be true.
o Distinction between Declaration Against Interest and Admission Against Interest:
▪ Admissions against interest are made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity.
Declarations against interest are made by a person who is neither a party nor in
privity to the suit.
▪ Admissions are primary evidence, declarations are secondary.
▪ Admissions are admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness,
declarations are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness.
• E. Rule on Declaration About Pedigree (Sec. 41, Rule 130)
o The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of
another person related to him or her by birth, adoption or marriage or in the absence thereof
with whose family he or she was so intimately associated as to be likely to have accurate
information concerning his or her pedigree, may be received in evidence where it occurred
before the controversy, and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration.
o Pedigree: Includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, dates and places of
these facts, and names of relatives.
o Requisites:
▪ Declarant is related to the person whose pedigree is the subject of inquiry.
▪ The relationship may be shown by evidence other than the declaration.
▪ The declaration was made before the death or inability of the declarant to testify.
▪ The declarant is dead or outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines or unable to
testify.
o Incriminating acts or declarations about pedigree which are acceptable evidence to establish
filiation.

81
I. Rules of Admissibility
• A. Rule 130, Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree:
o The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of
another person related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence.
o Conditions:
▪ It occurred before the controversy.
▪ The relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act
or declaration.
o Definition of "pedigree":
▪ Relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death.
▪ Dates and places where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives.
▪ Facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree.
• B. Rule 130, Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree:
o The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the
pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence.
o Requirements:
▪ The witness testifying thereon must be a member of the family, either by
consanguinity or affinity.
o Examples of evidence:
▪ Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts.
▪ Engravings on rings, family portraits, and the like.
o Family reputation defined:
▪ What is commonly said and understood to be true among the immediate relatives
and family connections of the party to whom the inquiry relates regarding questions
of genealogy, birth, marriages, and deaths.
o Tradition defined:
▪ Knowledge, belief, or practices, transmitted orally from father to son, or from
ancestor to posterity.
• C. Rule 130, Section 43. Common reputation:
o Common reputation existing previous to the controversy, as to boundaries or customs
affecting lands in the community and reputation as to events of general history important to
the community, respecting facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old, or
respecting marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence.
o Evidence:
▪ Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of
common reputation.
o Common reputation defined:
▪ The general or undivided reputation; equivalent to universal reputation.
o Requisites for admissibility as exception to hearsay rule:
▪ Matter is of public or general interest and more than 30 years old.
▪ Reputation formed in the community interested.
▪ Existed before any controversy arose.
▪ Relates to boundaries, customs affecting lands, events of general history, marriage,
or moral character.
o What common reputation may prove:
▪ Marriage and moral character.
• D. Rule 130, Section 44. Part of Res Gestae:
o Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto under the stress of excitement caused by the
occurrence with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as
part of res gestae.

82
 o Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.
o Res gestae includes the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact
and serve to illustrate its character and which are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with
the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.
o Classes of res gestae:
▪ Spontaneous exclamations: Statements made during or immediately before or
after a startling occurrence under stress of excitement.
▪ Verbal acts: Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, giving
it legal significance.
o Requisites for application:
▪ Principal act (res gestae) is a startling occurrence.
▪ Statements made before declarant had time to contrive or devise.
▪ Statements concern the occurrence and its immediate attending circumstances.
o Tests for admissibility:
▪ Act, declaration, or exclamation is intimately interwoven or connected with the
principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the
transaction itself.
▪ Evidence clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.
o Factors to consider in determining spontaneity:
▪ Time lapsed between occurrence and statement.
▪ Place where statement is made.
▪ Condition of declarant when utterance is given.
▪ Presence or absence of intervening events.
▪ Nature and circumstances of the statement itself.
o Critical factor in determining spontaneity:
▪ Ability or chance to invent a story.
o Doctrine of Independent Relevant Statement:
▪ Regardless of truth or falsity, the fact that such statements have been made is
relevant.
▪ The hearsay rule does not apply, and the statements are admissible as evidence.
▪ Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the
statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the
existence of such a fact.
o Distinction from Dying Declaration:
▪ Res Gestae may be that of the killer, victim, or spectator.
▪ Dying declaration can only be made by the victim.
▪ Res Gestae statement may precede, accompany or be made after the homicidal act.
▪ Dying declaration is made only after the homicidal act was committed.
▪ Res Gestae basis is spontaneity.
▪ Dying declaration is based upon the awareness of an impending death.
• E. Rule 130, Section 45. Records of Regularly Conducted Business Activity:
o A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or
diagnoses, made by writing, typing, electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the
time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof,
and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular
practice to make the memorandum, report record, or data compilation by electronic, optical
or similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified
witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
o Presumption of regularity for entries in payrolls; disputable presumption.
• F. Rule 130, Section 46. Entries in Official Records:

83
 o Entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer of the
Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
o Requisites for admissibility:
▪ Entry made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law to do
so.
▪ Made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by such other person
in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law.
▪ The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him
stated, which must have been acquired by him personally or through official
information.
o Rationale:
▪ Necessity due to inconvenience and difficulty of requiring official's attendance as
witness.
▪ Trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of performance of official
duty.
o Grounds for admissibility:
▪ Necessity to avoid disruption of official duties.
▪ Trustworthiness due to confidence in public officers discharging their duties with
accuracy and fidelity.
o Admissibility of police report:
▪ Admissible as exception to Hearsay Evidence Rule even if the police investigator
who prepared it was not presented in court, as long as the requisites are adequately
proved.
• G. Rule 130, Section 47. Commercial List and the Like:
o Evidence of statements of matter of interest in an occupation contained in a list, register,
periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any
relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by a person engaged in that
occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them.
o Grounds for admissibility:
▪ Necessity due to inaccessibility of compilers and inconvenience of summoning
numerous individuals.
▪ Trustworthiness because authors have no motive to deceive and realize the need for
accuracy.
• H. Rule 130, Section 48. Learned Treatises:
o A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is
admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial
notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the
treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his or her profession or calling as expert in
the subject.
o Requisites for admissibility:
▪ Court can take judicial notice of it.
▪ Expert witness testifies that the writer is recognized as an expert.
• I. Rule 130, Section 49. Testimony or Deposition at a Former Proceeding:
o The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or out of the Philippines or who cannot,
with due diligence. be found therein, or is unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in
a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and
subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity
to cross-examine him or her.
o Requisites for admissibility:
▪ Testimony was made in a former proceeding.
▪ Between the same parties.

84
 ▪ Relating to the same matter.
▪ Adverse party had opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
▪ Witness is dead, out of the Philippines, or cannot be found, or is unavailable.
• J. Rule 130, Section 50. Residual Exception:
o A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions, having equivalent
circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that: (a)
the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact: (b) the statement is more probative on
the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure
through reasonable efforts: and (c) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of
justice will be best served by admission of the statement into evidence.
o Requirements for admissibility:
▪ Proponent makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the hearing
the intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and
address of the declarant.
II. Additional Exceptions to Hearsay Evidence Rule
• A. Hearsay Exception in Child Abuse Cases (Child Witness Examination Rule, Sec. 28):
o A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse, not
otherwise admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or
non- criminal proceeding.
o Rules for admissibility:
▪ Proponent must make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such
statement and its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object.
▪ If the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party, require
the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-
examination by the adverse party.
▪ When the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the
proponent.
o Considerations for admissibility:
▪ Time, content, and circumstances of the statement providing sufficient indicia of
reliability.
▪ Factors:
▪ Motive to lie.
▪ General character of the declarant child.
▪ Whether more than one person heard the statement.
▪ Whether the statement was spontaneous.
▪ Timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child
and witness.
▪ Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant
child.
▪ Possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote.
▪ Circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason
to suppose the declarant child misrepresented the involvement of the
accused.
o When is a child witness unavailable:
▪ Deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or will be
exposed to severe psychological injury.
▪ Absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to
procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means.
o Effect of child witness unavailability:
▪ Hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible
evidence.

85
 • B. Inapplicability of Hearsay Evidence Rule under the Electronic Evidence Rule (Sec. 1,
Rule 8):
o A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or
diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from
transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the
regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular practice to make
the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means,
all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is
excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
o Requisites for electronic business records to be an exception:
▪ Authentication through the affidavit of the custodian or other qualified person.
• C. Rule on Overcoming the Presumption (Sec. 2, Rule 8 of the Electronic Document Rule):
o The presumption provided for in Sec. 1 of this Rule may be overcome by:
▪ Evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or
circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage thereof.
III. Opinion Rule
• A. Basic Concept
o Opinion evidence or testimony refers to evidence of what the witness thinks, believes or
infers in regard to facts in dispute.
• B. Rule on Opinion of a Witness (Sec. 51):
o The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the following sections.
o Exceptions:
▪ Opinion of an expert witness (Sec. 52).
▪ Opinion of an ordinary witness with respect to:
▪ The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge.
▪ A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity.
▪ The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
▪ The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person.
• C. Rule on Opinion of Expert Witness (Sec. 52):
o The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or
training or education which he or she shown to posses, may be received in evidence.
o Factors required of an expert witness:
▪ Training and education.
▪ Particular, first hand familiarity with the facts of the case.
▪ Presentation of authorities or standards on which his opinion is based.
o Factors to be considered in giving weight and sufficiency on expert testimony:
▪ Ability and character of the witness.
▪ Actions upon the witness stand.
▪ Weight and process of the reasoning.
▪ Possible bias.
▪ Whether he is a paid witness.
▪ Relative opportunities for study or observation.
o Function of the expert witness:
▪ To place before the court data upon which the court can form its own opinion.
• D. Rule on Questioned Document:
o Factors in determining the probative value of the testimony of a handwriting expert witness:
▪ His statements of whether a writing is genuine or false.
▪ Distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and
false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from
an unpracticed observer.
o Nature of the testimony of a handwriting expert:

86
 ▪ The testimony of a handwriting expert is not indispensable in examining or
comparing the handwriting or signature.
o Who has the authority to give probative value on questioned document:
▪ It is the court which has the discretion and authority on whether to give probative
value to the results of the examination.
• E. Rule on Medical Negligence/Malpractice:
o How to prove medical negligence/malpractice:
▪ Medical negligence cases are best proved by opinions of expert witnesses belonging
in the same general neighborhood and in the same general line of practice as
defendant physician or surgeon.
o Rule on the liability of the hospital in case ot negligence of its doctor:
▪ Hospitals are not liable for the negligence of its independent contractors.
o Doctrine of Apparent Authority:
▪ Hospital may be found liable if the physician or independent contractor acts as an
ostensible agent of the hospital.

87
I. Rules of Admissibility (Rule 130)
• Opinion of Ordinary Witness
o General Rule: A witness can only testify to facts they know of their own personal
knowledge; the court draws conclusions from these facts.
o Exceptions:
▪ Identity: A witness can provide an opinion on the identity of a person if they have
adequate knowledge of that person.
▪ Handwriting: A witness familiar with a person's handwriting can offer an opinion
on its authenticity.
▪ Case Law: In People of the Philippines vs. CCC, the Supreme Court ruled that
while a mother's testimony identifying her daughter's handwriting was
admissible, it wasn't sufficient to prove the crime of rape without further
evidence of the specific acts.
▪ Mental Sanity: A witness sufficiently acquainted with a person can give an opinion
on their mental sanity.
▪ Case Law: In Hernandez vs. Santos, the court held that expert opinion isn't
always necessary; a judge's observations combined with evidence can
suffice.
▪ Impressions: A witness can testify on their impressions of a person's emotion,
behavior, condition, or appearance.
▪ Understanding: An ordinary witness's opinion on a document's contents is based
on their understanding of what they read.
II. Character Evidence Rule
• Basic Concept: Character evidence is evidence of a person's moral standing in the community based
on reputation.
• General Rule: Evidence of a person's character is generally inadmissible to prove actions in
conformity with that character on a particular occasion.
• Exceptions:
o Criminal Cases:
▪ The character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish the
probability or improbability of the offense.
▪ The accused may prove their good moral character relevant to the offense, but the
prosecution can only rebut this, not initiate it.
▪ Rape Cases: The victim's moral character is immaterial in rape cases.
o Civil Cases: Moral character evidence is admissible only when character is directly at issue.
o Witnesses: Good character evidence for a witness is only admissible after their character has
been impeached.
o Forms of Proof: Admissible character evidence can be presented through reputation or
opinion testimony. Cross-examination may include inquiry into specific instances of
conduct.
o Essential Element: If character is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense,
specific instances of conduct may be proven.
III. Burden of Proof (Rule 131)
• Definition: Burden of proof is the duty to present evidence on facts in issue to establish a claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law. The burden of proof never shifts.
o Case Law: In Republic of the Philippines vs. Alfredo R. De Borja, burden of proof is defined as
the duty to establish the truth of a given proposition by such quantum of evidence as the law
demands.
• Burden of Evidence: The duty to present enough evidence to establish or rebut a fact and create a
prima facie case. The burden of evidence may shift during proceedings.
• Distinctions Between Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence:

88
| | Burden of Proof | Burden of Evidence | | :---------------------------- | :--------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------- | :-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- | | Shifting | Does not shift; remains with the party on whom it is imposed | Shifts from party to
party depending on the case's exigencies | | Determined by | Pleadings filed by the party | Developments in
the trial or by substantive law or procedural rules |
• Tests for Determining Burden of Proof:
o Criminal Cases: Lies with the prosecution.
o Civil Cases: Lies with the party asserting affirmative allegations.
o Other Proceedings: Lies with the party who would lose if no evidence is presented.
• General Rules and Applications:
o The party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it.
o Evidence must be sufficient to sustain the cause of action, even if stronger than the
opposing evidence.
o If the defendant denies factual allegations, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
• Specific Instances
o Forgery: The one alleging forgery has the burden to prove it by preponderance of evidence,
comparing the questioned signature with genuine ones. Forgery cannot be presumed.
o Demurrer to Evidence: It is premature to speak of preponderance of evidence because the
defendant has not yet presented evidence.
o Affirmative Allegation: The party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving
it.
o Payment: The one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.
o Statutory Rape: The prosecution must prove the age of the complainant, the identity of the
accused, and sexual intercourse.
o Ill-Gotten Wealth: The Republic must prove that the defendants used public funds.
o Foreclosure Proceedings: The mortgagor must prove that foreclosure proceedings were
invalid.
o Actual Damages: Must be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty.
o Frame-Up: Must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence.
o Evident Premeditation: Must be proved by clear evidence.
o Certiorari Proceedings: The petitioner must prove grave abuse of discretion.
o Service of Judgment/Notice: The person alleging service must prove it.
o Dismissal: The employee must first establish the fact of dismissal.
o Illegal Termination: The employer must prove that termination was for a valid or
authorized cause.
o Overtime Pay: The claimant must prove entitlement to overtime pay.
o Money Claims in Labor Cases: The employer must prove payment.
o Excessive Placement Fee: The evidence presented must substantiate that the respondent
collected more than the allowable placement fee.
o Absence of Witnesses in Probate of Will: The petitioner must account for the incapacity
and failure of the subscribing witness and notary public to testify.
o Writ of Amparo: The petitioner must prove government participation. The petitioner needs
to prove the existence of a continuing threat.
o Bail Hearing: The prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong.
o Competency Test of Child Witness: The burden of proof lies on the party challenging the
child's competence.
o Authenticity of an Electronic Document: The person seeking to introduce an electronic
document has the burden of proving its authenticity.
o DNA Testing for Paternity/Filiation: The petitioner must present prima facie evidence or
establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.
IV. Rules on Presumption

89
• Basic Concept: A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires based on another fact
or group of facts.
• Presumption of Law: An inference as to the existence of a fact not actually known, arising from its
usual connection with another which is known.
• Classes of Presumptions:
o Presumption juris or presumption of law.
o Presumption hominis or presumption of fact.
• Kinds of Legal Presumptions:
o Conclusive Presumptions: Cannot be overcome by evidence to the contrary.
o Disputable Presumptions: Can be overcome by competent evidence to the contrary.
• Conclusive Presumptions:
o Estoppel in Pais: A party cannot falsify a declaration, act, or omission that intentionally led
another to believe something true and act upon it.
o Estoppel Against Tenant: A tenant cannot deny the landlord's title at the commencement
of their relationship. This does not apply if the landlord's title changed during the lease.
• Other Presumptions:
o Conclusiveness of judgment when declared by the court.
o Knowledge of the law.
• Rules on Presumption in case of Judgment or Final Orders by the Philippine Court
o Effects of a judgment or final order:
▪ Against a specific thing, probate of a will, administration of an estate, personal,
political, or legal condition or status of a person: conclusive upon the title to the
thing, the will or administration, or the condition, status or relationship of the
person.
▪ With respect to the matter directly adjudged: conclusive between the parties and
their successors in interest.
▪ In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest: only
that is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which
appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and
necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.

90
CHAPTER V: RULE 131 - BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF EVIDENCE, AND
PRESUMPTIONS
• A. Basic Concepts
o 1. Burden of Proof
▪ Definition: The duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense.
▪ Civil Cases: Plaintiff has the burden to establish their case by preponderance of
evidence.
▪ Criminal Cases: The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The accused does not have to prove their innocence.
▪ shifting of Burden. The burden of proof may shift if the party is able to present
evidence to prove his claim.
• B. Presumptions
o 1. Conclusive Presumptions
▪ Definition: Inferences that the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them
to be contradicted by any evidence.
▪ Instances:
▪ Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally
and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act
upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration,
act, or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
▪ The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of
the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
o 2. Disputable Presumptions
▪ Definition: Satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be contradicted and overcome by
other evidence.
▪ Examples:
▪ Innocence of crime or wrong.
▪ The substantive basis is in Sec. 14, Art. III of the Constitution.
▪ Equipose Doctrine: When circumstances allow for two or more
inferences, one consistent with innocence, the presumption of
innocence prevails.
▪ Unlawful act with unlawful intent.
▪ Illegal recruitment: The accused is presumed to have committed
illegal recruitment if they lack authority or a license.
▪ Intention of ordinary consequences of a voluntary act.
▪ Taking ordinary care of concerns.
▪ Willfully suppressed evidence would be adverse if produced.
▪ Requisites: Evidence is material, the party had opportunity to
produce it, and it was available only to said party.
▪ Exceptions: When suppression is not willful, evidence is
corroborative or at the disposal of the party, or suppression is an
exercise of privilege.
▪ Money paid by one to another was due.
▪ A thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter.
▪ Obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid.
▪ Prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is
produced.
▪ Possession of a thing taken in a recent wrongful act.
▪ The person in possession is presumed to be the taker and the doer
of the whole act.
▪ Case Law: Eduardo Celedonio vs. People of the Philippines.

91
▪ Possession of an order on oneself for payment.
▪ Acting in a public office with regular appointment or election.
▪ Official duty regularly performed.
▪ Presumption of regularity in service of judgment.
▪ Overturning the presumption requires evidence of improper
performance or motive.
▪ No presumption of regularity if it deprives a taxpayer of property.
▪ Case Law: Corporate Strategies Development Corp. and Rafael Prieto vs.
Norman Agojo.
▪ Mere reliance on the presumption of regularity fails without proof.
▪ Unjustified preservation of seized drugs negates the presumption
of regularity.
▪ The presumption applies only when there is no deviation from
standard conduct.
▪ Testimony of police officers in a buy-bust operation is presumed
regular.
▪ Entries in official records are presumed to contain the facts stated
therein.
▪ Certification issued by the zoning administrator carries a
presumption of regularity.
▪ A court or judge acting lawfully.
▪ All matters within an issue were laid before the court.
▪ Private transactions are fair and regular.
▪ The ordinary course of business has been followed.
▪ Sufficient consideration for a contract.
▪ Case Law: Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Richard
Unchuan.
▪ Entries in payrolls enjoy a presumption of regularity.
▪ Negotiable instrument given or endorsed for sufficient consideration.
▪ Endorsement of negotiable instrument made before overdue.
▪ A writing is truly dated.
▪ A letter duly directed and mailed was received.
▪ The presumption is disputable and subject to controversion.
▪ Registry receipt or certification from the Bureau of Posts can
support the claim.
▪ Absence of seven years leads to presumption of death.
▪ The absentee is not considered dead for succession until after ten
years, or five years if they disappeared after age 75.
▪ Specific instances for presumption of death include being on a lost
vessel or aircraft, being in the armed forces and missing, or being in
danger of death.
▪ Substantive basis is Art. 390 of the Family Code.
▪ The period is computed from the date of last news, not from the
declaration of absence.
▪ Article 391 applies to specific cases like lost vessels or those in war.
▪ Article 391 is inapplicable if the vessel was not lost but destroyed,
and the person jumped overboard.
▪ If the absentee reappears, they recover their property but cannot
claim fruits or rents.
▪ Sec. 4 of Rule 73 provides rules for the settlement of the estate.
▪ Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was
conformable to law or fact.

92
 ▪ Things happened according to the ordinary course of nature and habits of
life.
▪ Persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartnership.
▪ A man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered
into a lawful contract of marriage.
▪ Case Law: Luis Uy vs. Sps. Jose Lacsamana and Rosaura Mendoza.
▪ Property acquired by a man and a woman without marriage was obtained by
their joint efforts.
▪ In cases of cohabitation, contributions are equal.
▪ Rules governing termination of marriage and birth of a child.
▪ A thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual.
▪ The law has been obeyed.
▪ A printed or published book by public authority was so printed or
published.
▪ A printed or published book contains correct reports of cases.
▪ A trustee has conveyed real property.
▪ Rules for survivorship when two persons perish in a calamity.
▪ Rules for doubt on who died first among successors.
• C. Presumption on Legitimacy or Illegitimacy
o There is no presumption of legitimacy for a child born after three hundred days following
the dissolution of marriage.
o Whoever alleges legitimacy or illegitimacy must prove it.
o Art. 169 of the Family Code provides the law on legitimacy or illegitimacy.
o Case Law: Social Security System VS. Rosanna H. Aguas.
• D. Presumptions on the Competence of Child Witnesses
o Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness.
o The court may conduct a competency examination if substantial doubt exists.
o The burden of proof lies on the party challenging competence.
• E. Disputable Presumptions on Electronic Evidence
o Electronic Signature: Any distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound in electronic form
representing a person's identity.
o Presumptions:
▪ The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates.
▪ The signature was affixed with the intention of authenticating or approving the
document.
▪ The methods used operated without error.
o Digital Signature: Transformation of an electronic document using an asymmetric or public
cryptosystem.
o Presumptions:
▪ Information in a certificate is correct.
▪ The signature was created during the operational period of the certificate.
▪ No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or revocable.
▪ The message has not been altered.
▪ A certificate had been issued by the certification authority.
• F. Disputable Presumption on DNA Testing
o Evaluation of DNA Testing Results: The court shall consider the weight of matching or
mismatching DNA evidence, and results in light of other evidence.
o DNA results excluding the putative parent are conclusive proof of non-paternity.
o Probability of Paternity: If the value is less than 99.9%, results are corroborative; if 99.9% or
higher, there is a disputable presumption of paternity.
o Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Villarin Clemen0.
• G. Disputable Presumption in Case of a Foreign Judgment or Final Orders Against a Person

93
 o A foreign judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between parties and
their successors.
• H. Disputable Presumption on Presumptive Service of Notice of Settings of the Court
o There is presumptive notice if the notice was mailed at least twenty calendar days prior if
within the same judicial region, or thirty calendar days if outside the judicial region.
• I. Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings
o A presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going
forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.
o If presumptions are inconsistent, the one founded upon weightier considerations of policy
applies.
• J. Presumption Against the Accused in Criminal Cases
o If a presumed fact establishes guilt, is an element of the offense charged, or negates a
defense, the existence of the basic fact must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
• K. Bursting-Bubble Theory
o A presumption disappears when the presumed facts have been contradicted by credible
evidence.
o The opponent of the presumption needs to introduce evidence sufficient to support a
contrary finding.

CHAPTER VI: RULE 132 - PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND EXAMINATION OF

INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES
• A. Basic Concepts
o Trial: A judicial process of investigating and determining legal controversies, starting with
the production of evidence.
o Nature: Adversarial, requiring presentation of evidence and examination of witnesses.
o Distinction between Trial and Hearing:
▪ Trial: Limited to the presentation of evidence and witnesses.
▪ Hearing: Broader, includes pre-trial conferences, motions, trial, and promulgation of
judgment.
o Necessity of Trial: Necessary if there are legal and factual issues requiring presentation of
evidence and witnesses.
o Exceptions: Trial is unnecessary in certain instances.
▪ Civil Cases:
▪ Cases under the Rules on Summary Procedure.
▪ Amicable settlement or compromise.
▪ Dismissal of action under Rule 16 or Secs. 1 and 2 of Rule 17.
▪ Failure of the plaintiff to appear during pre-trial conference.
▪ Judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34.
▪ Summary judgment under Rule 35.
▪ Amicable settlement during mediation or Judicial Dispute Resolution
(JDR).
▪ Agreement on facts for judgment without introducing evidence under Sec.
6, Rule 30.
▪ Criminal Cases:
▪ Accused pleads guilty during arraignment.
▪ Plea bargaining during arraignment or pre-trial conference.
▪ Motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy or prescription is
granted.
▪ Provisional dismissal.
▪ Failure of prosecution to bring the accused to trial within the prescribed
time.
• B. Kinds of Trial

94
 o Trial on the Merits: Trial of substantive issues in a case.
o Inverted Trial: The accused admits the crime but interposes an exculpatory defense, shifting
the burden to them to present evidence first.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. SPO1 Romulo Gutierrez, Jr..
o Trial in Absentia: Conducted after the accused has been arraigned and duly notified, but fails
to appear without justification.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Engracio Valeriano, et al.
▪ Presence of the accused is required during arraignment, trial for identification, and
promulgation of judgment.
▪ Case Law: Lavides us. CA.
o New Trial or Trial de Novo: Application for relief requesting the judge set aside the
judgment and order a new trial.
o Public Trial: Held in public, accessible and open to the public.
o Speedy Trial: Conducted according to the law, rules, and regulations, free from vexatious
delays.
o Joint or Consolidated Trial: Actions involving a common question of law or fact may be
ordered for a joint hearing or trial.
o Separate Trial: The court may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim,
or third-party complaint.
o Trial by Commissioner: By written consent of both parties, the court may order any or all of
the issues in a case to be referred to a commissioner.
o Impartial Trial: Conducted by a disinterested judge without favoring any party.
o Alternate Trial: Parties take turns in presenting their witnesses.
o Face-to-face Trial: Witnesses appear together before the court in a non-adversarial
environment.
• C. Order of Trial in Civil and Criminal Cases
o Order of Trial in Civil Cases: Sec. 5, Rule 30 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides
for the rule on the order of trial in civil cases.

95
I. Rule 132: Presentation of Evidence and Examination of Individual Witnesses

• A. Impartial Trial: A trial conducted by a disinterested judge without favoring any party.
• B. Alternate Trial: Parties take turns presenting witnesses regarding the first factual issue or related
issues in the order of trial. The party bearing the burden of proving the affirmative of the issue
presents their witness first.
• C. Face-to-Face Trial: Witnesses from opposing sides appear together before the court in a non-
adversarial environment, answering questions from the court and counsel about the factual issue.

II. Order of Trial

• A. Civil Cases:
o Subject to Sec. 2 of Rule 31 and unless the court directs otherwise, the trial is limited to the
issues in the pre-trial order.
o Order of Presentation:
▪ Plaintiff presents evidence to support their complaint.
▪ Defendant presents evidence to support their defense, counterclaim, cross-claim,
and third-party complaint.
▪ Third-party defendant presents evidence of their defense, counterclaim, cross-claim,
and fourth-party complaint.
▪ Fourth-party and so on, present evidence of their pleaded material facts.
▪ Parties against whom a counterclaim or cross-claim is pleaded present evidence in
support of their defense, as prescribed by the court.
▪ Parties may present rebutting evidence, unless the court allows evidence on their
original case for good reasons.
▪ Upon admission of evidence, the case is submitted for decision unless the court
directs argument or submission of memoranda.
▪ If multiple defendants or third-party defendants have separate defenses and
different counsel, the court determines the order of presentation.
o Inverted Trial in Civil Cases:
▪ Affirmative Defenses:
▪ Defendant raises affirmative defenses in their answer, limited to reasons
under Section 5(b), Rule 6.
▪ For other affirmative defenses under Sec. 5(b), Rule 6, the court may
conduct a summary hearing within 15 days of filing the answer. These
defenses are resolved within 30 days from the hearing's termination.
▪ Duty of the Court: The court may conduct a summary hearing within 15 calendar
days from the filing of the answer regarding affirmative defenses under Sec. 5(b),
Rule 6, and resolve such affirmative defenses within 30 calendar days.
▪ Case Law: When a defendant seeks dismissal via a motion to dismiss, the motion's
sufficiency is tested based on the facts alleged in the complaint. The court cannot
inquire into the truth of the allegations.
▪ Effect of Dismissal on Counterclaim: Dismissal of the complaint does not
prejudice the prosecution of a counterclaim in the same or separate action.
• B. Criminal Cases:
o Order of Trial:
▪ Prosecution presents evidence to prove the charge and civil liability.
▪ Accused presents evidence to prove their defense and damages from a provisional
remedy.
▪ Prosecution and defense may present rebuttal and surrebuttal evidence unless the
court allows additional evidence on the main issue.

96
 ▪ Upon admission of evidence, the case is submitted for decision unless the court
directs oral argument or written memoranda.
▪ If the accused admits the act/omission but interposes a lawful defense, the order of
trial may be modified.
o Modification of Order: The order of trial can be modified if the accused admits the
act/omission but raises a lawful defense.
o Case Law: Even with a plea of self-defense, the prosecution must present its proof first
because the accused is presumed innocent. The rule allows changes in the trial order at the
court's discretion.
o Inverted Trial: Inverted trial in criminal cases is permissive, not mandatory.
o Case Law: Even when self-defense is raised, the prosecution must still present its evidence
first. The change is based on the theory that pleading self-defense admits the killing, shifting
the burden of justification to the accused. Rule 119 does not mandate this change but allows
it at the court's discretion.

III. Rule on Continuous Trial

• A. Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC):

o The court encourages the accused and prosecution to avail of certain provisions:
▪ Accused: Secs. 12 and 13, Rule 119 on application of witness for the accused before
trial.
▪ Prosecution: Sec. 15, Rule 119 on conditional examination of witness for the
prosecution.
o Absence of Counsel: If counsel de parte is absent, the hearing proceeds with a counsel de
officio appointed by the court.
• B. Anti-Terrorism Act:
o For crimes under this Act, the judge sets the case for continuous trial daily from Monday to
Thursday, or another shorter trial calendar, to ensure the accused's right to a speedy trial.
• C. Environmental Cases:
o The judge conducts continuous trial not exceeding two months from the pre-trial order date.
o The judge may ask the Supreme Court to extend the trial period for justifiable cause before
the two-month period expires.
o Witness examination should be completed in one day, subject to the court's discretion for
extension.
o Only oral offers of evidence are allowed after the last witness, with immediate objections
from the opposing party. The judge rules on the evidence offer in open court.
• D. Admiralty Cases:
o The court conducts continuous trial not exceeding two months from the initial trial date.
o The two-month period may be extended for complex factual and legal issues, but the
extension cannot exceed one month.

IV. Rules on Examination of Individual Witnesses

• A. Basic Concept:
o Examination of Witness: Elicitation of information in court through questions and
answers.
o Kinds of Questions:
▪ Leading question: Suggests the desired answer.
▪ Misleading question: Assumes a fact not yet testified to or contrary to previous
testimony.
▪ Harmless question: Of little importance or unrelated to the issue.

97
 ▪ Open question: Allows the witness to answer freely.
▪ Trick question: Puts the witness in a no-win situation.
▪ Undeniable question: A question that the cross-examiner can ask of the witness the
answer which the latter cannot deny.
• B. Examination of Witnesses in Open Court:
o Witnesses are examined in open court, under oath or affirmation.
o Unless the witness is incapacitated or the questions require a different mode of answer,
answers are given orally.
o Case Law: Examination of witnesses must be done orally in open court. However, the
Rules of Court recognize conditional examination of witnesses and the use of their
depositions as testimonial evidence in lieu of direct court testimony.
o Hearings via Videoconferencing:
▪ Videoconferencing covers all Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDLs) and may apply to
all trial stages of new and pending criminal cases.
▪ The courts must ensure the accused's constitutional rights are protected, including
the right to be present, testify, and confront witnesses, which are satisfied through
videoconferencing.
▪ Remote locations are considered extensions of the court, mirroring in-court
proceedings' dignity.
▪ Hearings via videoconferencing are for pilot testing during the public health
emergency period.
o Examination of a Child Witness:
▪ Child witnesses are examined in open court. Unless the witness is incapacitated or
the question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers shall be given orally.
▪ The party presenting the child witness or the guardian ad litem may move the court
to allow the child to testify as provided in the rules.
• C. Recording of Proceedings:
o The entire proceedings, including questions, answers, and statements by the judge, parties,
counsel, or witnesses, are recorded via shorthand, stenotype, or other suitable means.
o A certified transcript by the official stenographer, stenotypist, or recorder is considered
prima facie a correct statement of the proceedings.
o Transcript of Electronic Testimony:
▪ When a witness is examined electronically, the entire proceedings, including
questions and answers, must be transcribed by an authorized stenographer,
stenotypist, or recorder, who certifies the transcript's correctness.
▪ The transcript should indicate that the proceedings were electronically recorded.
o Storage of Electronic Evidence:
▪ Electronic evidence, recordings, and stenographic notes form part of the case
record.
▪ The transcript and recording are deemed prima facie evidence of the proceedings.
• D. Rights and Obligations of a Witness:
o A witness must answer questions, even if the answer establishes a claim against them.
o Rights of a Witness:
▪ Protection from irrelevant, improper, or insulting questions and harsh demeanor.
▪ Not to be detained longer than necessary.
▪ Examination limited to pertinent matters.
▪ Not to give answers that may subject them to a penalty, unless otherwise provided
by law.
▪ Not to give answers that degrade their reputation, unless it is the fact at issue or
related to the fact at issue.
▪ A witness must answer about previous final convictions.
o Self-Incrimination: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

98
• E. Rights and Privileges of a Child Witness:
o During testimony or deposition, a child witness has specific rights and privileges.
o Right to an Interpreter:
▪ If a child doesn't understand English or Filipino or cannot communicate due to
developmental level, fear, shyness, disability, etc., the court may appoint an
interpreter.
▪ A family member can serve as an interpreter if they are the only option, but they
must testify before the child.
▪ Interpreters must take an oath for true and accurate interpretation.
o Right to a Facilitator:
▪ The court may appoint a facilitator if the child cannot understand or respond to
questions.
▪ Facilitators can be child psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, counselors,
teachers, religious leaders, parents, or relatives.
▪ Counsel poses questions to the child through the facilitator, using comprehensible
language.
▪ Facilitators must take an oath to pose questions according to counsel's intended
meaning.
o Right to Support Persons:
▪ A child can be accompanied by one or two persons of their choosing for emotional
support.
▪ Support persons must remain in view of the child during testimony.
▪ One support person may accompany the child to the witness stand, without
obscuring the child.
▪ The court may allow the support person to hold the child's hand or provide
emotional support.
▪ The court instructs support persons not to prompt or influence the child.
▪ If the support person is also a witness, the court may disapprove the choice if it
affects the child's testimony.
▪ If allowed, the support person who is also a witness testifies before the child.
o Right to a Waiting Area:
▪ Courts are encouraged to provide a separate, comfortable waiting area for children.
o Right to a Comfortable Environment:
▪ The court may supervise the location, movement, and deportment of everyone in
the courtroom to create a comfortable environment for the child.
▪ The child may testify from a place other than the witness chair.
▪ The witness chair may be turned to facilitate testimony, but the opposing party and
counsel must have a frontal or profile view of the child.
▪ The witness chair may be rearranged for the child to see the opposing party and
counsel without turning.
▪ The judge need not wear judicial robes.
▪ The child is not required to look at the accused, except for official in-court
identification.
o Right to Appropriate Hours:
▪ The court may order the child's testimony to be taken when the child is well-rested.
o Right to Recess:
▪ The child may be allowed reasonable breaks during examinations, depending on
their developmental level.
o Right to Testimonial Aids:
▪ The court shall permit a child to use dolls, anatomically-correct dolls, puppets,
drawings, mannequins, or other appropriate demonstrative devices to assist in their
testimony.

99
 o Right to Emotional Security:
▪ While testifying, a child shall be allowed to have an item of their own choosing such
as a blanket, toy, or doll.
o Right Not to be Approached by Counsel:
▪ The court may prohibit counsel from approaching a child if the child appears fearful
or intimidated.
o Mode of Questioning:
▪ The court shall control the questioning of children to ascertain the truth, ensure
questions are appropriate for the child's developmental level, protect children from
harassment or undue embarrassment, and avoid wasting time.
▪ The court may allow the child witness to testify in a narrative form.
• F. Order of Examination of Individual Witness:
o Order:
▪ Direct examination by the proponent.
▪ Cross-examination by the opponent.
▪ Re-direct examination by the proponent.
▪ Re-cross-examination by the opponent.
o One Day One Witness Examination Rule: A witness must be fully examined in one day,
subject to the court's discretion to extend for justifiable reasons.
o Most Important Witness Rule: Determine and limit the number of most important
witnesses, fixing facts to be proven and approximate hours per witness.
o Hearing and Trial under the Rules of Procedure for Admiralty Cases:
▪ Examination of Witnesses:
▪ The court strictly adheres to the one-day examination rule, with discretion
to extend for justifiable reasons.
▪ After the last witness, only oral offers of evidence are allowed, with
immediate oral objections. The judge rules on the offer of evidence in open
court.
▪ Parties may agree to examination via videoconferencing per Supreme Court
rules.
▪ Submission of the Case for Decision:
▪ After the last party rests their case, the court submits the case for decision.
▪ The court may require parties to submit position papers within ten days
from submission, with a non-extendible period of ten days from notice.
• G. Direct Examination:
o Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the presenting party on
relevant facts.
o Judicial Affidavit Rule on Direct Testimony:
▪ Submission of Judicial Affidavit and Exhibits:
▪ Parties must file judicial affidavits of their witnesses and
documentary/object evidence with the court and serve it to the adverse
party no later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference.
▪ Judicial affidavits replace direct testimonies.
▪ Documentary evidence is attached and marked as exhibits.
▪ The party may keep the original document if they warrant that the attached
copy is faithful. The original must be brought for comparison during the
preliminary conference.
▪ Case Law: The Judicial Affidavit Rule requires documentary or object
evidence to be attached when there would be a pre-trial or preliminary
conference or the scheduled hearing.
▪ Case Law: Section 2 of the JAR requires parties to file and serve the
judicial affidavits of their witnesses, together with their documentary or

100
 object evidence, not later than five days before pre-trial or preliminary
conference.
▪ Case Law: Sec. 10 does not contain a blanket prohibition on the
submission of additional evidence, provided that it will be allowed only
once, based on valid reason, and will not prejudice opposing party.
▪ Contents of Judicial Affidavit:
▪ A judicial affidavit must be in a language known to the witness, with a
translation if not in English or Filipino.
▪ Contents:
▪ Name, age, residence/business address, and occupation of the
witness.
▪ Name and address of the supervising lawyer and the examination
location.
▪ A statement that the witness is answering consciously under oath
and may face perjury charges.
▪ Numbered questions and answers that show how the witness
acquired the facts, elicit relevant facts, and identify/authenticate
documentary/object evidence.
▪ The witness's signature over their printed name.
▪ A jurat with the notary public's signature.
▪ Attestation Clause:
▪ The judicial affidavit must contain a sworn attestation by the supervising
lawyer.
▪ The lawyer attests that:
▪ They faithfully recorded the questions and answers.
▪ No one coached the witness.
▪ False attestation subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action, including
disbarment.
▪ Issuance of Subpoena:
▪ A subpoena can be issued if a government employee/official or a requested
witness (not the adverse party's witness or a hostile witness) unjustifiably
refuses to execute a judicial affidavit or make relevant documents available.
▪ Case Law: Sec. 5 of the JAR expressly excludes from its application
adverse party and hostile witnesses. For the presentation of these types of
witnesses, the provisions on the Rules of Court under the Revised Rules of
Evidence and all other correlative rules including the modes of deposition
and discovery rules shall apply.
▪ Effect of Non-Compliance:
▪ Failure to submit required affidavits and exhibits on time is a waiver.
▪ The court may allow late submission once if there is a valid reason, no
undue prejudice to the opposing party, and a fine is paid.
▪ The court will not consider the affidavit of a witness who fails to appear at
the scheduled hearing.
▪ Counsel's failure to appear without valid cause waives their client's right to
cross-examine witnesses.
▪ The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform
to the content requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of
Section 4.

V. Sample Form: Judicial Affidavit in Civil Cases

• A. Elements:

101
 o Witness Information: Name, address, etc.
o Attorney Information: Name of the lawyer offering the testimony of the witness in order to
prove certain facts.
o Questions and Answers: Specific questions and answers related to the case.

(see this)

102
I. Rule 132: Presentation of Evidence and Examination of Individual Witnesses
• A. Modes of Testimony
o 1. General Rule
▪ Witnesses must give testimony orally in court.
o 2. Exceptions
▪ a) Affidavit Submission:
▪ Summary Procedure: In cases under summary procedure, affidavits serve
as direct testimonies. Affidavits must contain facts of direct personal
knowledge and show the affiant's competence to testify.
▪ Environmental Cases: In environmental civil cases, affidavits marked
during pre-trial are presented as direct examination, subject to cross-
examination.
▪ b) Child Witness Examination:
▪ Live-Link Television: Testimony of a child victim/witness in criminal
cases can be taken via live-link television to a room outside the courtroom.
▪ Application: Prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad litem can apply.
The guardian ad litem must consult with the prosecutor/counsel
and consider the child's potential trauma.
▪ Timing: Application should be made at least five days before trial
unless unforeseeable.
▪ Court Actions: The court may motu proprio hear the need, question
the child in chambers, and exclude anyone causing fear to the child.
▪ Factors Considered: Age, health, nature of abuse, threats,
relationship with the accused, and the child's symptoms of stress.
▪ Conditions for Order: Substantial likelihood of trauma that would
impair the child's testimony.
▪ Order Details: The child testifies in a separate room with support
persons, facilitator, and court officer. Judge, counsel, and the
accused remain in the courtroom. The child may identify the
accused via television monitor.
▪ Preservation: Testimony is preserved on video or digital disc and
becomes part of the court record.
▪ Screens and One-Way Mirrors: The prosecutor or guardian ad litem may
request screens or other devices to shield the child from the accused. The
courtroom should allow the accused to view the child.
▪ c) Electronic Means:
▪ The court may authorize electronic testimony after a hearing, determining
its necessity and setting terms to protect rights.
• B. Examination of Witnesses
o 1. General Considerations
▪ a) Oath or Affirmation: Witnesses must take an oath or affirmation before
testifying.
▪ b) Competency: Witnesses must be competent to testify (able to perceive and
communicate).
o 2. Examination Types
▪ a) Direct Examination:
▪ The initial questioning of a witness by the party who called them to testify.
▪ In certain cases, affidavits can replace direct examination (see above).
▪ b) Cross-Examination:
▪ Purpose: To test accuracy, truthfulness, freedom from bias, and to elicit
important facts.
▪ Scope: Adverse party can cross-examine on any relevant matter.

103
 ▪ Right to Cross-Examine: Fundamental element of due process. Can be
waived.
▪ c) Re-Direct Examination:
▪ Purpose: To explain or supplement answers from cross-examination.
▪ Scope: Generally limited to matters covered during cross-examination, but
the court has discretion to allow new matters.
▪ d) Examination by the Court:
▪ The court can actively examine witnesses to determine credibility and
truthfulness, and to elicit necessary answers.
• C. Rules on Identification of the Accused
o 1. Out-of-Court Identification:
▪ Guiding Principles: A series of photos must be shown, not just the suspect's, and
the arrangement should not suggest the suspect. Photographic identification should
be free from any impermissible suggestions.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Llamera.
o 2. In-Court Identification:
▪ A defective out-of-court identification can be cured by a subsequent positive in-
court identification.
▪ Case Law: People vs. Rivera.
• D. Rules on Credibility of Witnesses and Testimony
o 1. Credibility of Witnesses:
▪ a) General Principles:
▪ Credibility refers to the witness's integrity and believability.
▪ The trial court's assessment is given great weight due to their opportunity to
observe the witness firsthand.
▪ Appellate courts generally defer to the trial court's assessment unless there
is arbitrariness or oversight.
▪ b) Factors Affecting Credibility:
▪ Child Victims: Courts give credence to child victims, especially in rape
cases.
▪ Failure to Report: Delay in reporting an incident does not automatically
affect credibility.
▪ Quality vs. Quantity: Courts weigh the quality of witnesses, not the
quantity.
▪ Judge's Observation: The judge who rendered the judgment does not
need to be the judge who conducted the trial.
▪ Youth and Immaturity: Youth and immaturity can be badges of truth and
sincerity.
▪ Police Officers: Presumed to have performed their duties regularly, unless
proven otherwise.
▪ Motives: Family feuds or resentment do not automatically invalidate
testimony.
▪ c) Case Law Examples:
▪ People of the Philippines vs. Ludigario Belen.
▪ People of the Philippines vs. Gilbert Penilla y Francia.
▪ People of the Philippines vs. Cristina Gustafsson.
▪ d) Key Considerations:
▪ Demeanor: The witness's behavior and manner of testifying.
▪ Consistency: Consistent testimonies are more credible.
o 2. Credibility of Testimony:
▪ a) General Principles:
▪ Testimony must be credible in itself, natural, reasonable, and probable.

104
 ▪ Positive and clear testimony of a lone witness can be given full credit.
▪b) Factors Affecting Credibility:
▪ Mental Deficiency: Does not automatically diminish reliability.
▪ Positive Identification: Must come from a credible witness and be
believable.
▪ Consistency: Testimony should be consistent.
▪ c) Case Law Examples:
▪ People of the Philippines vs. Jojie Suansing.
▪ Antonio Lejano vs. People of the Philippines.
▪ d) Common Scenarios:
▪ Rape Cases: Testimony of the rape victim, if credible and consistent, is
sufficient to convict.
▪ Drug Cases: Testimony of a poseur-buyer is crucial; informant testimony
is corroborative.
o 3. Inconsistencies:
▪ a) Minor Inconsistencies:
▪ They are badges of truth and can strengthen credibility.
▪ b) Major Inconsistencies:
▪ Must refer to significant facts vital to guilt or innocence to warrant
acquittal.
o 4. Positive vs. Negative Testimony:
▪ Positive identification and narration prevail over alibi and denial.
o 5. Key Case Law:
▪ People of the Philippines vs. Michael de Lima.
▪ People of the Philippines vs. Saiben Langcua y Daimla.
▪ People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Bosi y Danao.
▪ People of the Philippines vs. Roger Tejero.
• E. Special Rules Affecting Testimony
o 1. Effect of Death Before Cross-Examination:
▪ The testimony may be stricken off the record.
▪ Case Law: Spouses Dela Cruz vs. Papa Iv.
o 2. Incomplete Cross-Examination (Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony):
▪ Renders the testimony incomplete and may be stricken.
▪ Exceptions: If the witness was extensively cross-examined on material elements, or
the inability to complete cross-examination is not attributable to the offering party.
▪ Case Law: Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., et al vs. CIR, et al.
• F. Examination in Specific Cases
o 1. Admiralty Cases:
▪ Trial held for cross-examination within ten days of pre-trial if no mediation, or
within thirty days if mediation fails. No additional affidavits or evidence are allowed
without prior agreement.
o 2. Electronic Evidence:
▪ Affidavit Evidence: Admissibility and evidentiary weight established by affidavit
with facts of personal knowledge.
▪ Cross-Examination: The affiant must affirm the contents of the affidavit in court
and is subject to cross-examination.

Judicial Affidavit Rule

I. General Provisions

105
 • A. Purpose
o To reduce delays and expedite case resolution by streamlining the presentation of testimonial
evidence.
• B. Coverage
o Applies to all actions, cases, and proceedings requiring the submission of judicial affidavits.
II. Judicial Affidavit
• A. Definition
o A written statement of a witness, made under oath, intended to serve as the direct testimony
of the witness in court.
• B. Contents
o 1. Identification Details:
▪ Name, age, address of the witness, and other personal circumstances.
o 2. Attestation:
▪ A statement that the affidavit is based on personal knowledge and belief.
o 3. Question and Answer Format:
▪ The affidavit should contain questions posed by the lawyer and the corresponding
answers given by the witness.
o 4. Documentary Evidence:
▪ All exhibits and documents to be presented as evidence must be attached to the
judicial affidavit.
III. Submission and Filing
• A. Timing
o Judicial affidavits must be submitted within the period prescribed by the court or the rules.
• B. Requirements
o The party presenting the witness must ensure that the judicial affidavit complies with all the
requirements of the rule.
IV. Examination of the Witness
• A. Cross-Examination
o 1. Right of Adverse Party:
▪ The adverse party has the right to cross-examine the witness on their judicial
affidavit and any attached exhibits.
• B. Re-Direct Examination
o 1. Right of Presenting Party:
▪ The party presenting the witness may conduct a re-direct examination to clarify or
supplement answers given during cross-examination.
• C. Role of the Court
o 1. Active Participation:
▪ The court shall take an active part in examining the witness to determine credibility,
the truthfulness of testimony, and to elicit answers needed for resolving the issues.
V. Consequences of Non-Compliance
• A. Exclusion of Testimony
o Failure to comply with the requirements of the Judicial Affidavit Rule may result in the
exclusion of the witness's testimony.
• B. Sanctions
o The court may impose sanctions on the party or counsel responsible for the non-
compliance.
VI. Electronic Evidence
• A. Admissibility
o All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic document
may be established by an affidavit.
• B. Cross-Examination

106
 o The affiant must affirm the contents of the affidavit in open court and may be cross-
examined.
VII. Examination by Electronic Means
• A. Authorization
o The court may authorize the presentation of testimonial evidence by electronic means after
summarily hearing the parties.
• B. Requirements
o The court must determine the necessity for such presentation and prescribe terms and
conditions to protect the rights of the parties and witnesses.

107
I. Presentation of Evidence and Examination of Individual Witnesses (Rule 132)
• A. Modes of Examination
o Re-direct Examination:
▪ It allows a party to further examine their witness to explain or supplement answers
from cross-examination.
▪ The court has discretion to allow questions on matters not covered during cross-
examination.
▪ Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the party presenting the witness may examine
them as on re-direct.
o Re-cross Examination:
▪ After re-direct, the adverse party may re-cross-examine on matters from the re-
direct examination and other matters allowed by the court.
o Recalling a Witness:
▪ A witness cannot be recalled after examination by both sides without the court's
permission.
▪ The court will decide whether to grant recall based on the interests of justice.
• B. Questioning Techniques and Rules
o Leading Questions:
▪ A leading question suggests the desired answer.
▪ Generally, leading questions are not allowed on direct examination.
▪ Exceptions: Leading questions are allowed during cross-examination; for
preliminary matters; when dealing with a witness who is ignorant, a child, or has a
feeble mind; when dealing with an unwilling or hostile witness; or when examining
an adverse party or their representative.
▪ Child Witness: The court may allow leading questions at all stages of examination
of a child witness if it furthers the interests of justice.
o Misleading Questions:
▪ A misleading question assumes facts not yet testified to or contradicts previous
statements.
▪ Misleading questions are not allowed.
• C. Impeachment of Witnesses
o Impeaching an Adverse Party's Witness:
▪ A witness can be impeached by the party against whom they were called.
▪ Methods of impeachment: contradictory evidence, evidence of bad reputation for
truthfulness, or prior inconsistent statements.
▪ Limitations: Impeachment cannot be based on particular wrongful acts, except for
evidence of a prior conviction.
▪ Effect of Testimony: Calling the adverse party as a witness doesn't necessarily bind
the calling party to the witness's testimony. The calling party can contradict the
witness's testimony with other evidence.
▪ Case Law: Concepcion Chua Gaw, Vs. Suy Ben Chua And Felisa Chua, G.R. No.
160855, April 16, 2008: A party calling an adverse witness can impeach
them as if they had been called by the adverse party, except by evidence of
bad character.
▪ Contradictory Evidence: Refers to other testimony of the same witness or other
evidence presented by him in the same case, but not the testimony of another
witness.
▪ Prior Inconsistent Statement: Refers to statements made by the witness at other
times.
▪ Impeachment by Deposition: A deposition can be used to contradict or impeach
a witness's testimony.
o Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime:

108
 ▪ Evidence of a final conviction can be used to impeach a witness if the crime was
punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year or involved moral turpitude.
▪ Exception: Evidence of conviction is inadmissible if there has been an amnesty or
annulment of the conviction.
o Party May Not Impeach His Own Witness:
▪ Generally, a party cannot impeach their own witness.
▪ Exceptions: Unwilling or hostile witnesses, or adverse parties.
▪ Hostile Witness: A witness is considered unwilling or hostile if declared by the
court due to adverse interest, reluctance to testify, or misleading the party.
▪ An unwilling or hostile witness can be impeached in all respects as if called by the
adverse party, except by evidence of bad character.
▪ Cross-examination by the adverse party is limited to the subject matter of the
examination-in-chief.
• D. Other Considerations
o Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statements: Before impeaching a witness with prior
inconsistent statements, the witness must be informed of the circumstances of the
statements, asked if they made such statements, and allowed to explain them. Written
statements must be shown to the witness before questioning.
o Exclusion and Separation of Witnesses:
▪ The court may exclude witnesses from the courtroom to prevent them from hearing
other testimonies.
▪ Exceptions: A party who is a natural person, a designated representative of a
juridical entity, a person essential to the case, or a person authorized by statute.
▪ The court may also keep witnesses separate and prevent them from conversing with
each other.
▪ Case Law: Design Sources International Inc. and Kenneth Sy vs. Lourdes Eristingcol, G.R.
No. 193966, February 19, 2014: The purpose of excluding or separating witnesses is
to ensure truthful testimony by preventing collusion.
▪ Child Witness: The court may exclude the public during the testimony of a child
witness to protect the child's privacy or prevent psychological harm.
o Reference to a Memorandum by Witness:
▪ A witness can refresh their memory using a written record made when the fact
occurred or was fresh in their memory, if they knew it was accurate when written.
▪ The adverse party can inspect the writing, cross-examine the witness on it, and
introduce it as evidence.
▪ A witness may testify from a record even if they lack present recollection, if they can
swear the record was accurate when made. Such evidence should be received with
caution.
o Part of Transaction Admissible:
▪ If one party introduces part of a transaction, writing, or record, the other party can
inquire into the whole subject.
▪ When a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing, or record is given in
evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, writing, or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence.
o Right to Inspect Writing: Whenever a writing is shown to a witness, the adverse party has
a right to inspect it.
II. Authentication and Proof of Documents
• A. Classes of Documents
o Documents are classified as either public or private.
o Public Documents:
▪ Written official acts or records of official acts of sovereign authority, official bodies,
tribunals, and public officers.

109
 ▪ Documents acknowledged before a notary public, except last wills and testaments.
▪ Documents considered public under treaties and conventions between the
Philippines and the country of origin.
▪ Public records kept in the Philippines of private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
▪ Case Law: Raul S. Imperial US. Heirs f Neil Bayaban and Mary Lou Bayaban, G.R. No.
197626, October 3, 2018: Public documents are prima facie evidence of the facts
stated therein and need not be authenticated.
▪ Case Law: Anna Lerima Patula vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164457, April 11,
2012: A public document is self-authenticating and requires no further
authentication to be presented as evidence.
▪ Notarized Documents: Documents acknowledged before a notary public (except
last wills) are public documents.
▪ The certificate of acknowledgment in a notarial document is prima facie
evidence of the execution of the document.
▪ To contradict facts in a notarial document, the evidence must be clear,
convincing, and more than merely preponderant.
▪ Notarial Will: Formalities to prove a notarial will's authenticity relate to the
attestation and subscription of the testator and attesting witnesses, not merely the
notarization.
▪ Case Law: Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
225696, April 8, 2019: A notary public falsifying a public document
undermines public trust and may be held criminally liable.
▪ Electronically Notarized Document: A document electronically notarized
according to Supreme Court rules is considered a public document.
o Private Documents:
▪ All writings other than those classified as public documents.
▪ Medical Certificate: A medical certificate is considered a private document and
requires the physician to be presented in court to establish their qualifications as an
expert witness.
▪ Case Law: St. Martin Polyclinic Inc. vs. LWV Construction Corporation, G.R. No.
217426, December 4, 2017: A medical certificate is hearsay evidence unless
the author is presented, and its contents are suspect without the
opportunity for cross-examination.
• B. Proof of Private Documents
o Before a private document is admitted as authentic, its due execution and authenticity must
be proven.
▪ Methods of proof:
▪ Testimony from someone who saw the document executed or written.
▪ Evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
▪ Other evidence showing due execution and authenticity.
▪ Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is
claimed to be.
▪ Case Law: Anna Lerima Patula vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164457, April 11,
2012: A private document requires authentication before its acceptance as evidence.
▪ Case Law: VDM Trading, Inc. and Spouses Luis and Nena Domingo vs. Leonita
Carungcong and Wack Wack Tuwin Towers Condominium Association, G.R. No. 206709,
February 6, 2019: The identity and authenticity of a private document must be
properly laid and reasonably established.
▪ Failure to Authenticate: Failure to properly authenticate private documents results
in their inadmissibility.

110
 ▪ Case Law: Lara's Gift and Décor's, Inc. vs. PNB General Insurers Co. Inc, G.R.
Nos. 230429-30, January 24, 2018: The court can only rule on admissibility
upon formal offer of evidence.
▪ Official Receipts: Official receipts are considered private documents.
▪ Case Law: Raul S. Imperial vs. Heirs of Neil Bayaban and Mary Lou Bayaban,
G.R. No. 197626, October 3, 2018: Official receipts of hospital and medical
expenses are private documents and must be authenticated.
▪ Genuineness of Signature:
▪ The testimony of the person whose signature is disputed is competent
proof.
▪ Testimony of a witness who saw the person sign or make the writing is also
admissible.
▪ Defective Notarization: Defective notarization reduces a document to a private
instrument, requiring proof of due execution and authenticity.
▪ Case Law: Norma Diampoc vs. Jessie Buenaventura and Registry of Deeds, G.R.
No. 200383 March 19, 2018: A defective notarization strips the document of
its public character.
▪ Real Estate Mortgage (REM): If a REM is notarized by a clerk of court (beyond
their authority), it is considered a private document requiring proof of due execution
and authenticity.
▪ Absence of Signature: Absence of the signature of the Chief of the General Land
Registration Office (GLRO) casts doubt on the genuineness of the decree.
▪ Case Law: Republic of the Philippines vs. Cesar Pasicolan and Gregorio Pasicolan,
G.R. No. 198543, April 15, 2015: The requirements for authenticating a
private document should be applied to dispel doubts on the decree's
genuineness.
▪ Authentication Not Required for Public Documents: Authentication is only
required for private documents, not public documents.
▪ Case Law: Heirs of Jose Marcial K. Ochoa, namely Ruby B. Ochoa, Michaela B.
Ochoa and Jomar B. vs. G&&S Transport Corporation, GR. No. 170125, July 11,
2012: Due execution and authenticity are already presumed for public
documents.
• C. Ancient Document Rule
o Evidence of authenticity is not required if a private document is more than 30 years old,
produced from proper custody, and unblemished by alterations or suspicious circumstances.
▪ Case Law: Simplicia Cercado-Siga, et al. vs. Vicente Cercado, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 185374,
March 11, 2015: An ancient document need not be authenticated if it meets the
criteria of age, proper custody, and lack of suspicious alterations.
▪ Proper Custody: Ancient documents are considered from proper custody if they
come from a place from which they might reasonably be expected to be found.
• D. Manner of Proving Genuineness of Handwriting
o Handwriting can be proved by a witness who believes it to be the person's handwriting
because they have seen the person write or have seen writing purporting to be theirs upon
which the witness has acted.
o Comparison of handwriting by a witness or the court with writings admitted or treated as
genuine is also allowed.
▪ Case Law: Hilario Lamsen vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 227069, November 22,
2017: The genuineness of handwriting may be proved by a witness familiar with the
handwriting or by comparison with genuine specimens.
▪ Case Law: Damaso Ambraay and CeferinoAmbray vs. Sylvia Tsourous, et al., G.R. No.
209264, July 5, 2016: Direct evidence of a witness physically present at the signing of
a contract has greater evidentiary weight than expert testimony.

111
 ▪ Case Law: Sps. Patricio and Myrna Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, namely Emma S.
Feicilda, et al, G.R. No. 163271, January 15, 2010: Comparisons made by a document
examiner and the court are permissible when challenging the signatures in a
document.
▪ Case Law: Janet Carbonel vs. Julita A. Carbonell-Mendes, Represented by Her Brother and
Attormey-in-Fact, Virgilio A. Carbonel, G.R. No. 205681, July 1, 2015: The court may
examine the signature on the questioned document and compare it with genuine
signatures to determine authenticity.
• E. Public Documents as Evidence
o Documents consisting of entries in public records made by a public officer are prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein.
▪ Case Law: Republic of the Philippines vs. Miller Omandam Unabia, G.R. No. 213346,
February 11, 2019: A medical certificate issued by a public officer is prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein.
o Case Law: Republic of the Philippines vs. Carmen Santorio Galeno, G.R. No. 215009, January 23,
2017: Public documents cannot be given probative weight if the public officers who issued
them did not testify in court to prove the facts stated therein.
o Case Law: Re: Complaint of Concerned Members of Chinese Grocers Association against Justice Socorro
Inting of the Court of Appeals, A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-177-CA-J, April 12, 2011: A certificate of
death that is not an original or certified true copy is not admissible in evidence.
• F. Official Records as Evidence
o The record of public documents may be evidenced by an official publication or a copy
attested by the officer with legal custody.
o Case Law: Marlyn Monton Nullada vs. The Hon. Civil Registrar of Manila, Akira Ito, Shin Ito, and
All Persons Who Have or Claim Any Interest, G.R. No. 224548, January 23, 2019: To prove a
foreign law, a party must present a copy thereof and comply with Secs. 24 and 25 of Rule
132 of the Revised Rules of Court.
o Case Law: David Noveras vs. Leticia Noveras, G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014: Philippine
courts recognize foreign judgments relating to the status of a marriage if a copy of the
foreign judgment is admitted in evidence and proven under Rule 132, Secs. 24 and 25, in
relation to Rule 39, Sec. 48(b) of the Rules of Court.
• G. Authentication of Documents under the Apostille Convention (May 14, 2019)
o An Apostille is a certificate that authenticates the origin of a public document for use in
another country that is party to the Apostille Convention.
o Foreign public documents from Apostille-contracting countries need not be authenticated by
Philippine Embassies and Consulates General.
o Applicability: The Apostille Convention applies only if both the issuing and receiving
countries are parties to the Convention.
o Effect: Documents no longer require legalization by a Foreign Embassy if the destination
country is a member of the Apostille Convention.
o DFA Office of Consular Affairs: The DFA Office of Consular Affairs is the competent
authority responsible for the implementation of the Apostille Convention.

112
CHAPTER VI: RULE 132 - PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND EXAMINATION OF
INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES

A. Authentication of Documents for Use Abroad: The Apostille Convention

• Apostille Procedure: Streamlines document authentication for international use, reducing cost and
processing time.
• Effect of Apostillization: Documents authenticated (Apostillized) by the Department of Foreign
Affairs (DFA) are valid in all countries that are members of the Apostille Convention, without
needing further legalization by foreign embassies.
• Countries Not Covered: The Apostille Convention does not apply to Austria, Finland, Germany,
and Greece, meaning documents to and from these countries still need embassy or consulate
legalization.
• Government Office in Charge: The DFA Office of Consular Affairs is responsible for
implementing the Apostille Convention.
• Role of the Supreme Court: Accession to the Apostille Convention requires amendments to the
Rules of Court regarding the use of foreign public documents.

B. Presentation and Admissibility of Evidence

• CENRO or PENRO Certification:
o Not Prima Facie Evidence: Certifications from the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO) or Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office
(PENRO) are not considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated within.
o Case Law: Republic vs. Medida explains that a CENRO or PENRO certification is insufficient
to prove land is alienable and disposable. An application for land registration must include
the original DENR Secretary-approved classification, certified by the legal custodian of
official records.
• Public Documents as Evidence:
o Definition: Public documents include official written acts or records by sovereign
authorities, official bodies, tribunals, and public officers, whether in the Philippines or a
foreign country. Also, public records of private documents required by law to be entered in
the Philippines.
o Admissibility: Public document records under Sec. 19(a) of Rule 132 may be evidenced by
an official publication or a copy attested by the officer with legal custody.
o Prima Facie Evidence: Documents consisting of entries in public records made by a public
officer in the performance of their duty are prima facie evidence of the facts stated.
o Limitations: Certifications from CENRO and the Regional Technical Director, FMS
DENR, do not fall under the class of public documents contemplated in the first sentence of
Sec. 23, Rule 132 because they do not reflect entries made in the performance of a duty by a
public officer.
• Proving Foreign Divorce Decrees:
o Requirements: To prove a foreign divorce and the foreign law allowing it, one must present
copies of an official publication, or if the copies are abroad, they must be accompanied by a
certificate from the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service
stationed in the foreign country where the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of their
office.
o Case Law: Redante Sarto vs. People of the Philippines specifies compliance with Secs. 24 and 25,
Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court to prove a foreign divorce decree.
o Recognition by Philippine Courts: A foreign divorce decree obtained by an alien spouse
does not have automatic effect in the Philippines and requires recognition by Philippine
courts.

113
 o Divorce as an Integral Aspect: Philippine courts may recognize a foreign divorce decree if
it's invoked as part of a claim or defense.
o Proving the Foreign Law: Proving the foreign law under which the divorce was secured is
mandatory because Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.
• Special Power of Attorney Notarized Abroad:
o Certification Not Required: No certification is needed for a Special Power of Attorney
(SPA) notarized abroad to institute a petition in court.
o Validity: What matters is that the document was certified before a commissioned officer
with the authority to administer oaths, confirming the authorization for the person to file the
petition.
o Case Law: Ma. Hazelina Tujan-Militante vs. Ana Kari Nustad affirms the validity of a notarial
document if it was certified before a commissioned officer with powers to administer an
oath.
• Proving Private International Law/Foreign Law:
o Pleading and Proof: Foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. Otherwise,
it is presumed that the laws of the foreign country are the same as Philippine domestic law.
o Requirements for Proof: To prove a foreign law, a copy must be presented in compliance
with Secs. 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court.
o Mandatory Requisites: For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, it must
be attested by the officer with legal custody of the records or their deputy, and it must be
accompanied by a certificate from a Philippine embassy or consular official, authenticated by
the seal of their office.
o Case Law: Nedlloyd Lijnen B. V. Rotterdam and the East Asiatic Co. Ltd. vs. Glow Laks
Enterprises, Ltd. emphasizes the necessity of proper attestation and certification for foreign
laws.
• Contents of the Attestation Clause:
o Rule: Sec. 25, Rule 132 requires that the attestation state the copy's correctness to the
original and be under the official seal of the attesting officer or the court's seal.
o Requirements: The attestation must state that the copy is a correct copy of the original or a
specific part thereof and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.
• Irremovability of Public Record:
o Rule: Public records, of which an official copy is admissible as evidence, must not be
removed from their office.
o Exception: Removal is allowed upon a court order when inspection of the record is
essential for a pending case.
• Public Record of a Private Document:
o Proof: An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original
record or a copy attested by the legal custodian with an appropriate certificate of custody.
• Proof of Lack of Record:
o Requirements: Lack of an official record or entry can be proven by a written statement
from the officer with custody, stating that a diligent search found no such record,
accompanied by a certificate.
o Case Law: Syed Azhar Abbas vs. Gloria Abbas supports the certification of the Civil Registrar
to prove the non-issuance of a marriage license.
• Impeachment of Judicial Record:
o Grounds: A judicial record may be impeached by evidence of (a) lack of jurisdiction, (b)
collusion between parties, or (c) fraud by the offering party.
o Extrinsic Fraud: Extrinsic fraud is a fraudulent act outside the trial preventing the defeated
party from fully presenting their case.
o Case Law: Amihan Bus Line, Inc. vs. Romars International Gases Corp. defines extrinsic fraud as
preventing a real contest during trial, justifying annulment of judgment.

114
 • Proof of Notarial Record:
o Rule: A duly acknowledged, proved, and certified instrument may be presented as evidence
without further proof, with the certificate of acknowledgment serving as prima facie
evidence of the instrument's execution.
o Case Law: Skunac Corporation and Alfonso Enriquez vs. Roberto Sylianteng and Caesar Sylianteng
affirms that a notarized document is admissible without further proof of due execution and
is conclusive of its contents, with a presumption of regularity.
o Effect of Notarization: A notarized document serves as evidence of the facts that gave rise
to its execution and the date thereof.
o Improper Notarization: An improperly notarized document is not considered a public
document.
o Videoconference Notarization: Allowed under specific conditions outlined in A.M. No.
20-07-04-SC, especially during community quarantine due to COVID-19.
• Proof of Electronically Notarized Document:
o Rule: An electronically notarized document, following Supreme Court rules, is considered a
public document and proved as a notarial document under the Rules of Court.
• Alteration of Document:
o Explanation Required: A party presenting an altered document must account for the
alteration, showing it was made without their concurrence, with consent, innocently, or that
it didn't change the instrument's meaning.
o Effect of Failure to Explain: If the alteration is not accounted for, the document is
inadmissible.
o Case Law: Floro T. Tadena vs. People of the Philippines outlines how to address alterations in a
document per Sec. 31, Rule 132.
• Rule on Seal:
o Admissibility: There is no distinction between sealed and unsealed private documents
regarding their admissibility as evidence.
• Documentary Evidence in an Unofficial Language:
o Translation Required: Documents in an unofficial language are inadmissible unless
accompanied by a translation into English or Filipino.

C. Offer and Objection

• Basic Concepts:
o Offer of Evidence: Presentation or introduction of evidence; marking a document for
identification is insufficient.
o Objection: An argument against an act by the adverse party or a court determination during
trial.
• Offer of Evidence:
o Rule: Courts shall consider only formally offered evidence, specifying its purpose.
o Case Law: Jose R. Catacutan vs. People of the Philippines emphasizes that evidence not formally
offered has no evidentiary value.
o Requirements: Evidence must be formally offered, specifying its purpose.
o Exceptions: The rule is relaxed if the evidence was identified by recorded testimony and
incorporated into the case records.
o Rationale: Formal offer ensures due process, allowing the opposing party to object and
counter the evidence properly.
o Emeritu Barut vs. People of the Philippines clarifies exceptions to the formal offer rule, such as
when evidence is duly identified or when the court takes judicial notice.
o Republic of the Philippines vs. Fe Roa Gimenez and Ignacio Gimenez illustrates a case where the court
relaxed the rule on formal offer of evidence in the interest of substantial justice.
• When to Make an Offer of Evidence:

115
 o Oral Offering: All evidence must be offered orally.
o Testimonial Evidence: Offered when the witness is called to testify.
o Documentary and Object Evidence: Offered after presenting a party's testimonial
evidence.
o Case Law: Heirs of Pedro Pasag represented by Eufremio Pasag, et al, Spouses Lorenzo and Florentina
Parocha, Priscilla Abellera, Maria Viloria Pasag clarifies the process and exceptions for written
offers of evidence.
• Rules on Objection:
o Manner and Timing: Objections to orally offered evidence must be made immediately
after the offer.
o Testimony: Objections to a witness's testimony for lack of formal offer must be made as
soon as the witness begins to testify.
o Grounds: The grounds for objections must be specified.
o Ma. Melissa Villanueva Magsino vs. Rolando N. Magsino outlines when to object to oral and
documentary evidence.
o Waiver: Failure to object at the proper time constitutes a waiver.
o Objections on Appeal: Objections to admissibility cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal.
• Rules on Offer and Objections to Exhibits Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule:
o Procedure: Upon the termination of the testimony of the last witness, a party must
immediately make an oral offer of documentary or object exhibits, stating the purpose.
o Objection: The adverse party states the legal ground for their objection, and the court rules
immediately.
o Reference to Exhibits: Exhibits are cited by their markings, dispensing with the need for a
detailed description.
• Rule on Objections to Admissibility of Deposition:
o Timing: Objections to the admissibility of a deposition may be made at the trial or hearing.
o Grounds: Objections can be made for any reason that would require the exclusion of the
evidence if the witness were present and testifying.
• Kinds of Objections:
o As to Form:
▪ Oral objection
▪ Written objection
o As to Reason Relied Upon:
▪ Specific objection
▪ General objection
o As to the Main Object:
▪ Objection as to exhibits or documents or objects
▪ Objection as to question asked by the proponent during trial
o As to the Number of Objections:
▪ Seasonable or single objection
▪ Continuing objection
o As to the Action Taken by the Court:
▪ Overruled objections
▪ Sustained objections
▪ Noted and deferred objection

116
I. Rule 132 - Presentation of Evidence and Examination of Witnesses
• A. Objection to Questions
o 1.Objection During Testimony: Objections are made during the taking of witness
testimony.
o 2. Types of Objections Based on Number:
▪ a. Seasonable or Single Objection: Raised at every appropriate moment for each
question.
▪ b. Continuing Objection: Used when repetition of the line of questioning is
unnecessary. Per Sec. 37, Rule 132, it is not necessary to repeat an objection to
questions of the same class once a continuing objection has been recorded.
o 3. Types of Objections Based on Court Action:
▪ a. Overruled Objections: Denied by the court.
▪ b. Sustained Objections: Granted by the court.
▪ c. Noted and Deferred Objections: Ruling is reserved by the court.
o 4. Grounds for Objections:
▪ a. Irrelevant and immaterial evidence.
▪ b. Incompetent evidence.
▪ c. Opinion of witness.
▪ d. Leading question.
▪ e. Misleading question.
▪ f. Compound questions.
▪ g. General question.
▪ h. Question calling for narration.
▪ i. Vague question.
▪ j. Hypothetical question.
▪ k. Embarrassing questions.
▪ l. Question on admitted matters.
▪ m. Question already answered.
▪ n. Hearsay evidence.
▪ o. Parol evidence.
▪ p. Original Document rule.
▪ q. Privileged communication (husband-wife, attorney-client, doctor-patient, priest-
penitent, state secrets).
▪ v. Lack of basis.
▪ w. Self-incriminating question.
▪ x. Argumentative or harassing question.
▪ y. Illegally obtained evidence.
▪ z. Disqualification by reason of spousal immunity.
▪ aa. Disqualification by reason of the dead man's statute.
▪ bb. Parental and filial privilege.
▪ cc. Lack of Firsthand Knowledge rule.
o 5. Manner of Interposing Proper Objection: Specific examples are provided for how to
object on grounds such as leading questions, misleading questions, questions lacking basis,
and others.
• B. Formal Offer of Evidence
o
1. Written Objection Sample Form: Includes a sample form for written objections to an offer of
evidence, detailing the exhibits, reasons/grounds for objection, and the relief sought.
• C. Ruling on Objections
o

117
1. Rule on Ruling: Sec. 38, Rule 132 states the court's ruling must be given immediately after the
objection unless the court needs time to consider the question. The ruling should allow the party against
whom it is made an opportunity to address the situation.
o
2. Content of Ruling: The court doesn't need to state the reason for sustaining or
overruling, but must specify grounds if the objection is based on multiple grounds
and is sustained on some of them.
o
3. Effect of No Ruling: Failure to rule during trial prejudices the rights of the party,
as counsel wouldn't know if they need to meet certain evidence.
▪ Case Law: Lopez, et al vs. Valdez, 32 Phil. 644
o
4. Duty of Party: The party should call the court's attention to make a ruling.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Singh, et al., 45 Phil. 676
o
5. Effect of Reservation: Reserving a ruling without excluding the evidence is
equivalent to denying the objection.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Tavera, et al, 47 Phil. 645
o
6. **Sample Form: ** Order of Admission of Evidence: Includes a sample order for
the admission of evidence, indicating exhibits admitted after considering objections.
• D. Striking Out Answer
o
1. Rule on Striking Out: Sec. 39, Rule 132 allows the court to strike out answers if the witness
answers before an objection could be made, if the answer is unresponsive, if the witness testifies without a
question or beyond set limits, or if the witness narrates instead of answering.
o
2. Grounds for Striking Out:
▪ a. Witness answers before objection.
▪ b. Answer is not responsive.
▪ c. Witness testifies without a question or beyond limits.
▪ d. Witness narrates instead of answering.
o
3. Effect of Striking Out: Facts stricken out cannot be considered unless established
by other evidence.
▪ Case Law: Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Custodio, G.R. No. 173780.
• E. Tender of Excluded Evidence
o
1. Rule on Tender: Sec. 40, Rule 132 allows an offeror to attach excluded documents/things to the
record or state the substance of excluded oral evidence.
o
2. How to Make a Tender:
▪ a. Attach excluded documents/things to the record.
▪ b. State the witness's personal details and proposed testimony for excluded oral
evidence.
▪ Case Law: Jose R. Catacutan vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 175991
o
3. Admissibility of Photocopies: Photocopies of excluded evidence are generally not
admitted if the original wasn't produced, unless exceptions apply.
▪ Case Law: Anna Marie Gumabon vs. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 202514
o

118
 4. Requirements for Relaxing the Rule: Must show reasonable cause for non-
compliance and convince the Court that dismissal would defeat substantive justice.
▪ Case Law: Fortune Tobacco Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No. 192024
• F. Harmless Error Rule
o
1. Rule on Harmless Error: Sec. 6, Rule 51 states that errors in admission/exclusion of evidence or
any ruling are not grounds for a new trial unless inconsistent with substantial justice.
o
2. Effect of Harmless Error: The court must disregard errors that don't affect the
parties' substantial rights.
II. Rule 133 - Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
• A. Basic Concepts *1. Weight of Evidence: The balance or preponderance of evidence. *2.
Sufficiency of Evidence: Evidence with probative value, appreciated with proper degrees considered
by the court. *3. Conflicting Affidavit and Testimony: Testimony in court is given more weight than
an affidavit due to the ex parte nature and potential inaccuracies of affidavits. *Case Law: PO2 Jessie
Flores vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 222861, Aprl 23, 2018 *Case Law: People of the
Philippines vs. Jonel Falabrica Serenas, G.R. No. 188124
o
4. Positive Identification vs. Police Blotter: Positive identification outweighs
incomplete police blotter entries.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Nonoy Ebet, G.R. No. 181635
o
5. Hierarchy of Evidentiary Value: Proof beyond reasonable doubt > Clear and
convincing evidence > Preponderance of evidence > Substantial evidence.
▪ Case Law: Manalo vs. Roldan-Confessor, G.R. No. 102358
• B. Preponderance of Evidence
o
4. Definition: The greater weight of credible evidence.
▪ Case Law: Tomas Tan vs. Jose Hosana, G.R. No. 190846
o
2. Characteristic: Evidence more convincing and worthy of belief.
▪ Case Law: BJDC Construction vs. Nena Lanuzo, et al., G.R. No. 161151
o
3. Proving Right of Ownership: Tax declarations alone are insufficient without other
supporting evidence.
▪ Case Law: Heirs of Teresita Vilanueva vs. Heirs of Petronila Mendoza, G.R. No.
209132
o
4. Concept: Evidence of greater weight and more convincing.
▪ Case Law: Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Custodio, G.R. No. 173780
▪ Case Law: Cavile vs. Litania-Hong, G.R. No. 179540
o
5. Burden of Proof: The party with the burden must establish their case by a
preponderance of evidence.
▪ Case Law: Tamani vs. Salvador, G.R. No. 171497
o
6. Factors to Consider: Facts and circumstances, witness manner, intelligence,
opportunity, nature of facts, probability, interest, credibility, and number of
witnesses.
▪ Case Law: Heirs of Jose Lim, Represented by Elenito Lim vs. Juliet Villa Lim, G.R.
No. 172690

119
 o
7. Fraud or Mistake: The alleging party must prove fraud or mistake by
preponderance of evidence.
▪ Case Law: Spouses Nilo Ramos and Eliadora Ramos vs. Raul Obispo and Far East
Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. 193804
o
8. Failure to Establish Case: The defendant may file a demurrer to evidence.
▪ Case Law: Nenita Gonzales, et al. vs. Mariano Bugaay and Lucy Bugaay, G.R. No.
173008
o
9. Proving Action is Not SLAPP: Party seeking dismissal must prove legitimate
action by substantial evidence; the party claiming SLAPP must prove it's not by
preponderance of evidence.
• C. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
o
4. Concept: Accused entitled to acquittal unless guilt is shown beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning
moral certainty.
o
2. Source: The Bill of Rights and presumption of innocence. *Case Law: Ricardo
Veriñoy Pingol vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 225710
o
3. How to Prove Guilt: Prosecution must overcome the presumption of innocence.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Dioscoro Comoso Turemutsa, G.R. No.
227497
o
4. Duty of Prosecution: Prove guilt through the strength of its own evidence.
▪ Case Law: Jonathan de Guzman y Aguilar vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
240475
o
5. Quantum of Evidence: Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to convict.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Rubio, G.R. No. 179748
o
6. Meaning: A degree of proof that produces absolute certainty, excluding the
possibility of error.
▪ Case Law: Leonardo Casona vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179757
o
7. Overcoming Presumption of Guiltlessness: Must pass the test of relevancy and
competency.
▪ Case Law: BSB Group, Inc., represented by its President, Mr. Ricardo Bangayan vs.
Sally Go a.k.a. Sally Go-Bangayan, G.R. No. 168644
o
8. Uncorroborated Testimony of Lone Witness: Sufficient if the testimony is
straightforward, categorical, and not motivated by ill-will, with positive
identification.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Hesson Calao, G.R. No. 228945
o
9. Criminal Conviction for Employee Termination: Not necessary to find just
cause for termination.
▪ Case Law: Lynvil Fishing Enterprises, Inc. vs. Andres G. Aiola, et al, No. 181974
• D. Extrajudicial Confession
o

120
4. Definition: Voluntary declaration acknowledging commission of a crime. *Case Law: People of the
Philippines vs. Mojica, 57 OG 6813
o
2. Requirement for Conviction: Must be corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
o
3. Corpus Delicti: The fact of the commission of the crime.
o
4. Corpus Delicti in Theft: Can be established by circumstantial evidence if the
property was lost by the owner due to felonious taking.
▪ Case Law: Engr. Anthony V. Zapanta vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
170863
o
5. Corpus Delicti in Illegal Drugs: The dangerous drug itself.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Alcuizar, G.R. No. 189980 *Case Law:
People of the Philippines vs. De Guzman y Danzil, G.R. No. 186498
o
6. Requisites for Admissibility: Express acknowledgment of guilt, facts constitute a
criminal offense, given voluntarily/intelligently, and no violation of constitutional
rights.
o
7. Interlocking Confession: Extrajudicial confessions made independently, identical
in material respects, and confirmatory of each other are admissible as circumstantial
evidence against co-accused.
▪ Case Law: People vs. Encipido, 230 Phil. 560, 574 (1986)
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines VS. Reyes, G.R. No. 178300
o
8. Burden of Proof: The defense must prove that confession was involuntary.
o
9. Rationale for Inadmissibility of Involuntary Confession: Unreliable,
humanitarian considerations, and violation of the right against self-incrimination.
o
10. Binding Effect: Generally, only binds the accused, not co-accused.
o
11. Exceptions: If the co-accused impliedly acquiesced or adopted the confession.
*Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Orenciada, et al., 47 Phil. 970
o
12. Repeated in Court: Becomes a judicial admission if repeated in court.
▪ Case Law: Salvador Yapyuco y Enriquez vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan and The People
of the Philippines *Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Janjalani, G.R. No.
188314
o
13. Accused Signed Receipt: Signature on receipt of seized property without counsel
is an inadmissible confession. *Case Law: People of the Philippines vS. Mauyao, 207
SCRA 732; People vs. Turla, 167 SCRA 278
o
14. Binding Effect of Extrajudicial Confession: Binds only the confessant.
▪ Case Law: Gerry A. Salapuddin US. The Court of Appeals
• E. Circumstantial Evidence
o
4. Definition: Indirectly proves a fact through inference.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. P/Supt. Artemio E. Lamsen, et al., G.R.
No. 198338

121
o
2. Requirements for Conviction: More than one circumstance, proven facts, and a
combination producing conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Anthony Palada@ Ton-Ton, and Jonaly
Logrosa
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines vs. Jose Belmar Umapas, G.R. No. 215742
o
3. Distinction from Direct Evidence: Circumstantial evidence requires inference,
but its probative value is not necessarily less.
▪ Case Law: Marlon Bacerra vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 204544
o
4. Proving Robbery and Carnapping: Can be proved by circumstantial evidence if
requisites are met.
▪ Case Law: Celerino Chua vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 172193
o
5. Sufficiency to Convict: Circumstances must be consistent with each other and the
hypothesis of guilt, while inconsistent with innocence.
▪ Case Law: People of the Philippines US. Remedios Tanchanco y Pineda, G.R. No.
l177761
o
6. Proving Conspiracy: Can be proved by circumstantial evidence that forms an
unbroken chain.
▪ Case Law: Benjamin Jesalva vs. People, G.R. No. 187725

122
CHAPTER VII: RULE 133 – WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
• Section 1. Preponderance of Evidence
o In civil cases, the party with the burden of proof must present evidence that is more
convincing than that offered by the other party.
o Definition: Greater weight of evidence.
o It does not mean a large number of witnesses, but the quality of evidence.
• Section 2. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
o Required in criminal cases for conviction.
o Definition: Moral certainty that excludes all reasonable doubt.
o If the prosecution fails to meet this standard, the accused must be acquitted.
• Section 3. Extrajudicial Confession, Not Sufficient Ground for Conviction
o An extrajudicial confession is not sufficient for conviction unless corroborated by evidence
of corpus delicti [body of the crime].
• Section 4. Circumstantial Evidence
o Definition: Circumstantial evidence can be used for conviction if the following conditions
are met:
▪ There is more than one circumstance.
▪ The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.
▪ The combination of all the circumstances produces a conviction beyond a
reasonable doubt.
o The circumstances should form an unbroken chain leading to a reasonable conclusion that
the accused is guilty, excluding all others.
o The circumstances proved must be consistent with each other and with the hypothesis that
the accused is guilty, and inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilt.
o Application:
▪ Rape: Penetration can be proven by circumstantial evidence, especially when the
victim is unconscious.
▪ Positive Identification: Can be proven by circumstantial evidence, such as when
the accused was last seen with the victim before or after the crime.
o Motive:
▪ Motive becomes material when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive.
▪ It is important when there is doubt about whether a crime was committed or
whether the accused committed it.
o Failure to Establish Unbroken Chain: Results in acquittal of the accused.
• Section 5. Weight on the Opinion of Expert Witness
o The court has discretion in determining the weight given to an expert's opinion.
o Factors for Consideration:
▪ Whether the opinion is based on sufficient facts or data.
▪ Whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods.
▪ Whether the witness applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts.
▪ Other factors the court deems helpful.
• Section 6. Substantial Evidence
o Definition: Such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion.
o Application:
▪ Used in administrative or quasi-judicial bodies.
▪ Required in labor cases and administrative proceedings.
▪ Used to warrant disciplinary sanctions.
o Nature:
▪ More than a mere scintilla.
o Effect of Dismissal of Criminal Case:

123
 ▪ The dismissal of a criminal case does not automatically result in the dismissal of an
administrative case.
▪ Administrative liability requires only substantial evidence.
o Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt:
▪ Not required in administrative charges; substantial evidence is sufficient.
o Factual Findings:
▪ Factual findings of administrative agencies or quasi-judicial bodies are generally
accorded respect and finality, especially when supported by substantial evidence.
o Amparo Proceeding:
▪ The required quantum of evidence is substantial evidence.
▪ If allegations are proven by substantial evidence, the court grants the writ and
appropriate relief.
▪ Substantial evidence is needed to find that the State violated a person's rights.
o Case of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation):
▪ Summary hearing.
▪ Party seeking dismissal must prove by substantial evidence that their acts were
legitimate for environmental protection.
▪ Party filing the action assailed as a SLAPP must prove by preponderance of
evidence that the action is not a SLAPP.
• Section 7. Clear and Convincing Evidence
o Definition: Establishes in the minds of the trier of facts a firm belief about the fact in issue.
o Application:
▪ Alibi: Must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
▪ Forgery: Must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.
▪ Presumption of Conjugal Property: Rebutted by clear, positive, and convincing
evidence.
▪ Defense of Frame-Up: Must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
• Section 8. Power of the Court to Stop Further Evidence
o The court may stop further testimony when the evidence is already full and more witnesses
would not be persuasive.
o This power should be exercised with caution.
• Section 9. Rule on Evidence on Motion
o When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record, the court may hear the matter on
affidavits or depositions.
o The court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or
depositions.

124