Page 1 of 18

Categories of documentary evidence

1. Writings;
2. Recordings;
3. Photographs;
4. Any other material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols or
their equivalent;
5. Other modes of written expression offered as a proof of their contents.

NOTE: Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion
pictures or videos

NOTE: A private document may be offered and admitted in evidence both as

documentary evidence and as object evidence depending on the purpose for which
the document is offered. If offered to prove its existence, conditions or for any purpose
other than the contents of a document, the same is considered as an object evidence.
When the private document is offered as proof of its contents, the same is considered
as documentary evidence. The document may be offered for both purposes under the
principle of multiple admissibility. (Riano, 2016)

A record of birth is merely a prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. It is
not conclusive evidence of the truthfulness of the statements made therein by the
interested parties.

Theory of indivisibility (Rule on Completeness) When part of an act, declaration,

conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the
same subject may be inquired into by the other; and 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. (Sec. 17, Rule 132)

NOTE: Where the issue is only as to whether such a document was actually executed,
or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution or delivery
(external facts), the best evidence rule (now, original document rule), does not apply,
and testimonial evidence is admissible. (Moran, 1980) The Best Evidence Rule (now
original document rule), applied to documentary evidence, operates as a rule of
exclusion, that is, secondary evidence cannot be inceptively introduced as the original
writing itself must be produced in court, except in the instances mentioned in Sec. 3.
(Regalado, 2008)

the reason underlying the adoption of the best evidence rule (now the original
document rule)
There is a need to present to the court the exact words of a writing where a slight
variation of words may mean a great difference in rights. It is also for the prevention
of fraud or mistake in the proof of the contents of a writing.

The best evidence rule (now the original document rule) applies only to documentary
evidence, not to object or testimonial evidence. The presentation at the trial of the
"buybust money" is not indispensable to the conviction of the accused especially if the
sale of dangerous drugs had been adequately proved by the testimony of the police
officers. So long as the drug actually sold by the accused had been submitted as an
exhibit, the failure to produce the marked money itself would not constitute a fatal
omission.

When applicable
 Page 2 of 18

1. The original document of the writing is the writing itself;

2. The contents of which is the subject of the inquiry; and
3. The original document must be produced if the purpose is to prove its contents.
(Tan, 2019)

NOTE: When the truth of the document is in issue and not the contents thereof, the
original document rule is not applicable. In such case, it is the hearsay rule that will
apply. (Riano, 2016) Where the issue is the execution or existence of the document or
the circumstances surrounding its execution, the original document rule does not
apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. (Arceo, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 142641,
July 17, 2006)

Subject of inquiry
When the original document rule comes into operation, it is presumed that the subject
of the inquiry is the contents of the document, thus the party offering the document
must present the original thereof and not any other secondary evidence.

Collateral Facts Rule

A document or writing which is merely “collateral” to the issue involved in the case
on trial need not be proved. Where the purpose of presenting a document is not to
prove its contents, but merely to give coherence to, or to make intelligible the
testimony of a witness regarding a fact contemporaneous to the writing, the original
of the document need not be presented.

An “original” of a document is either:

1. the document itself; or
2. any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executive or issuing
it.

NOTE: An original of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom.

NOTE: If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output
readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “original.”
This is considered as the “Functional Equivalent” of the original under the Rules on
Electronic Evidence A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same impression
as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including
enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce
the original.

GENERAL RULE: A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
2. In the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the
original. (Sec. 4, Rule 130, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

NOTE: Writings with identical contents made by printing, mimeographing,

lithography and other similar methods executed at the same time are considered as
original document. Thus, each newspaper sold in the stand is an original. (Riano,
2016)

Production of the original may be dispensed with if, in the trial court’s discretion, the
opponent (1) does not dispute the contents of such document and (2) no other useful
purpose will be served by the production. Secondary evidence of the contents of the
 Page 3 of 18

writing would be received in evidence if no objection was made to its reception.

(Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001)

Secondary evidence
Evidence other than the original instrument or document itself. It is the class of
evidence that is relevant to the fact in issue, it being first shown that the primary
evidence of the fact is not obtainable. It performs the same functions as that of
primary evidence.

NOTE: A party must first present to the court proof of loss or other satisfactory
explanation for the non-production of the original instrument. When more than one
original copy exists, it must appear that all of them have been lost, destroyed or cannot
be produced in court before secondary evidence can be given. (Country Bankers
Insurance Corp. v. Lagman, G.R. No. 165487, July 13, 2011)

The non-production of the original document, unless it falls under any of the
exceptions in Sec. 3, Rule 130, gives rise to the presumption of suppression of
evidence. (De Vera, et al. v. Aguilar, et al. G.R. No. 83377, February 9, 1993)

Requisites before the contents of the original document may be proved by

secondary evidence (laying the basis/laying the predicate)
The offeror must prove the following:
1. The execution or existence of the original document;
2. The cause of its unavailability; and 3. The unavailability of the original is not due to
bad faith on his or her part. (Sec. 5, Rule 130, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules
on Evidence)

NOTE: Accordingly, the correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss,
and contents. This order may be changed if necessary, at the sound discretion of the
court. (Citibank, N.A. MasterCard v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 150905, September 23, 2003)

Due execution of the document may be proved by any of the following means:
1. By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
2. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker; or
3. By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity. (Sec. 20, Rule 132,
2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

NOTE: Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed
to be.

Intentional destruction of the originals by a party who acted in good faith does not
preclude the introduction of secondary evidence of the contents thereof. (Regalado,
2008)

Proof of loss or destruction It may be proved by:

1. Any person who knew of such fact;
2. Anyone who, in the judgment of the court, had made sufficient examination in the
places where the document or papers of similar character are usually kept by the
person in whose custody the document was and has been unable to find it; or
3. Any person who has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the
court that the document is indeed lost.

NOTE: A reasonable probability of its loss is sufficient, and this may be shown by a
bona fide and diligent search, fruitlessly made, in places where it is likely to be found.
(Paylago v. Jarabe, G.R. No. L-20046, March 27, 1968)
 Page 4 of 18

All duplicates or counterparts of a lost or destroyed document must be accounted for

before using copies thereof since all duplicates are parts of the writing to be proved.
(De Vera, et al. v. Aguilar, et al., G.R. No. 83377, February 9, 1993)

Upon proof of its execution and loss of the original document, its contents may
be proved by the following, in the order stated:
1. By a copy of the original;
2. By recital of the contents of the document in some authentic document; or
3. By the testimony of witnesses (Sec. 5, Rule 130, 2019 Amendments to the Revised
Rules on Evidence)

Definite Evidentiary Rule Where the law specifically provides for the class and
quantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of a document, or bars
secondary evidence of a lost document, such requirement is controlling, E.g. evidence
of a lost notarial will should consist of a testimony of at least two credible witnesses
who can clearly and distinctly establish its contents. (Sec. 6, Rule 76; Regalado, 2008)

NOTE: Public records are generally not to be removed from the places where they are
recorded and kept. Hence, proof of the contents of a document which forms part of a
public record may be done by secondary evidence.

When a document produced is not offered in evidence If the party who calls for the
production of a document does not offer the same in evidence, no unfavorable
inference may be drawn from such failure. This is because a party who calls for the
production of a document is not required to offer it. (Sec. 9, Rule 130, 2019
Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

SECTION 9, RULE 130

➢ Procured by mere notice to the adverse party, which is a condition precedent
for the subsequent introduction of secondary evidence by the proponent.
➢ Presupposes that the document to be produced is intended as evidence for the
proponent who is presumed to have knowledge of its contents.

SECTION 27, RULE 130

➢ The production of document is in the nature of a mode of discovery and can
be sought only by proper motion in the trial court and is permitted only upon
good cause shown.
➢ Contemplates a situation wherein the document is either assumed to be
favorable to the party in possession thereof or that the party seeking its
production is not sufficiently informed of the contents of the same.

RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (A.M. No. 01-7-01 SC) Effectivity Date: August
1, 2001

Electronic document
1. 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; and
2. 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. (Sec. 1[h], Rule 2, A.M. No. 01- 07-01-SC)
 Page 5 of 18

For the document to be deemed electronic, it is important that it be received,

recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved, or produced electronically. The
Rule does not absolutely require that that the electronic document be initially
generated or produced electronically. (Riano, 2016)

Electronic data message

Information generated, sent, received, or stored by electronic, optical or similar
means. (Sec. 1[f], Rule 2, A.M. No. 01-07-01-SC)

Electronic documents as functional equivalent of paper-based documents

Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term of writing, document, record,
instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to
include an electronic document. (Sec. 1, Rule 3, A.M. No. 01-07-01-SC)

Admissibility
1. It must comply with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and
related laws; and
2. If must be authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules.

Privileged communication
The confidential character of a privileged communication is not denied solely on the
ground that it is in the form of an electronic document.

While "data message" has reference to information electronically sent, stored or

transmitted, it does not necessarily mean that it will give rise to a right or extinguish
an obligation, unlike an electronic document. Evident from the law, however, is the
legislative intent to give the two terms the same construction. (MCC Industrial Sales
Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, G.R. No. 170633, October 17, 2007)

Original of an electronic document

An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document
under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data accurately. (Sec. 1, Rule 4, A.M. No.01-07-01-SC)

Copies as equivalents of the originals

GENERAL RULE: Copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the
original when: 1. A document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same
time with identical contents; or 2. It is a counterpart produced by the same
impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic
re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which
are accurately reproduces the original. (Sec. 2, Rule 4, A.M. No.01-07-01-SC)

EXCEPTIONS:
1. A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
2. In the circumstances, it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the
original. (Sec. 2, Rule 4, A.M. No.01-07-01- SC)

Burden of proving authenticity

The person offering the document has the burden to prove its authenticity. (Sec. 1,
Rule 5, A.M. No.01- 07-01-SC)

Evidentiary weight of electronic documents; Factors for assessing evidentiary

weight
 Page 6 of 18

1. The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated, stored or

communicated, including but not limited to input and output procedures, controls,
tests and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data message or
document, in the light of all the circumstances as well as any relevant agreement;
2. The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified;
3. The integrity of the information and communication system in which it is recorded
or stored, including but not limited to the hardware and computer programs or
software used as well as programming errors;
4. The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the
communication and information system;
5. The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication and
information system upon which the electronic data message or electronic document
was based; or
6. Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the accuracy or integrity of
the electronic document or electronic data message. (Sec. 1, Rule 7, A.M. No.01-07-01-
SC)

Affidavit of evidence All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight
of an electronic document may be established by an affidavit stating facts of direct
personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit must
affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to testify on the matters contained
therein. (Sec. 1, Rule 9, A.M. No.01-07-01-SC)

NOTE: Cross-examination of the deponent is allowed as a matter of right by the

adverse party. (Sec. 2, Rule 9, A.M. No.01-07-01-SC)

Inapplicability of the hearsay rule 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. (Sec. 1, Rule 8, A.M. No.01-07-01-SC)

NOTE; The presumption provided for in Sec. 1, Rule 8 may be overcome by evidence
of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or circumstances
of the preparation, transmission or storage. (Sec. 2, Rule 8, A.M. No.01- 07-01-SC)

Manner of authentication of electronic documents

1. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed
the same;
2. By evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be
authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic
documents were applied to the document; or
3. By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the
judge. (Sec. 2, Rule 5, A.M. No.01-07-01-SC)

NOTE: The above-mentioned requirements will only apply when the document is a
private document and the same is offered as an authentic document. (Riano, 2016)

Manner of authentication of electronic signatures

1. By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature
and verify the same;
2. By any other means provided by law; or
 Page 7 of 18

3. By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of the
electronic signature. (Sec. 2, Rule 6, A.M. No.01-07-01-SC)

Audio, video, and similar evidence

Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be
admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall
be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by
some other person competent to testify on its accuracy. (Sec. 1, Rule 11, A.M. No.01-
07-01-SC)

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. (Sec. 1[k], Rule 2, A.M. No.01-07-01-SC) Under Section 2,
Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, ephemeral electronic communications
shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has
personal knowledge thereof. In this case, complainant who was the recipient of said
messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents
and import. Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone number reflected in
complainant’s cellphone from which the messages originated was hers. Moreover, any
doubt respondent may have had as to the admissibility of the text messages had been
laid to rest when she and her counsel signed and attested to the veracity of the text
messages between her and complainant. It is also well to remember that in
administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly
applied. There is no doubt as to the probative value of the text messages as evidence
in determining the guilt or lack thereof of respondent. (Nuez v. Cruz-Apao, A.M. No.
CA-05-18-P, April 12, 2005; Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud, A.M. No. CA-05-20- P,
Septembeer 9, 2005)

By analogy, a deleted Facebook post may be admitted as an ephemeral electronic

communication subject to the exclusionary rule of whether it was illegally obtained
or not.

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as between the parties and
their successors-ininterest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the
written agreement. (Sec. 10, Rule 130, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence)

NOTE: Among the evidentiary rules, it is the parol evidence rule that has direct
application to the law on contracts. The rule applies only to contracts which the
parties have decided to set forth in writing. Hence, parol evidence does not apply to
oral contracts. (Riano, 2016)

Parol evidence
It is any evidence aliunde (extrinsic evidence) which is intended or tends to vary or
contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document (Regalado,
2008). It may refer to testimonial, real or documentary evidence.

NOTE: Parol evidence is evidence outside of the agreement of the parties while the
parol evidence rule prevents the presentation of such parol evidence.

RATIONALE: When the parties have reduced their agreement in writing it is

presumed that they made such writing as the repository of all terms of the agreement,
 Page 8 of 18

and whatever is not found in the said writing must be considered as waived and
abandoned. (Tan, 2010)

Condition precedent and a condition subsequent established by parol evidence

Condition precedent may be established by parol evidence because there is no varying
of the terms of the written contract by extrinsic agreement because there is no
contract in existence. There is nothing in which to apply the excluding rule. Conditions
subsequent may not be established by parol evidence since a written contract already
exists.

NOTE: The present rule now requires that the admissibility of subsequent
agreements be conditioned upon its being put in issue. (Sec. 10, Rule 130, 2019
Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Requisites for the application of the rule

1. There must be a valid contract;
2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to writing. The term “agreement”
includes wills;
3. The dispute is between the parties or their successors-in-interest; and
4. There is dispute as to the terms of the agreement.

Parties should be privies to the contract

The parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not be properly invoked, by either
party to the litigation against the other, where at least one party to the suit is not a
party or privy of a party to the written instrument in question and does not base a
claim or assert a right originating in the instrument of the relation established
thereby. Thus, if one of the parties to the case is a complete stranger to the contract
involved therein, he is not bound by this rule and can introduce extrinsic evidence
against the efficacy of the writing. (Lechugas v. CA, et al., G.R. Nos. L-39972 & L-40300,
August 6, 1986)

The parol evidence rule applies to agreements, i.e., contractual obligations. However,
the term “agreement” includes wills. Therefore, there can be no evidence of the terms
of the will other than the contents of the will itself. (Riano, 2016) NOTE: While parol
evidence applies to wills, an express trust concerning an immovable or any interest
therein may not be proved by parol evidence. (Art. 1443, Civil Code of the Philippines)

Exceptions to Parol Evidence Rule

A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written
agreement if he or she puts in issue in a verified pleading the following:
1. Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties thereto
2. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
3. Validity of the written agreement; or
4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after
the execution of the written agreement. (Sec. 10, Rule 130, 2019 Amendments to the
Revised Rules on Evidence)

Mistake
The mistake contemplated is one which is a mistake of fact mutual to both parties.
(Bernardo, 2008, citing Gurango vs. IAC, G.R. No. 75290, November 4, 1992)

Kinds of ambiguities

1. INTRINSIC OR LATENT
 Page 9 of 18

On its face, the writing appears clear and unambiguous but there are collateral
matters which make the meaning uncertain.

2. EXTRINSIC OR PATENT
Ambiguity is apparent on the face of the writing and requires that something be added
to make the meaning certain.

3. INTERMEDIATE
Ambiguity consists in the use of equivocal words susceptible of two or more
interpretation.

Failure of the written agreement to express true intent of the parties

Parol evidence may be admitted to show the true consideration of the contract, or the
want or illegality thereof, or the incapacity of the parties, or the fact that the contract
was fictitious or absolutely simulated, or that there was fraud in inducement
(Regalado, 2008). Despite the meeting of the minds, the true agreement of the parties
is not reflected in the instrument. (Riano, 2016)

NOTE: In an action for reformation of instrument under Art. 1359 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, the plaintiff may introduce parol evidence to show the real intention
of the parties. An action for reformation presupposes that a meeting of the minds
exists between the parties, i.e., there is a contract between them although the
instrument that evidences the contract does not reflect the true agreement of the
parties by reason of, for instance, fraud or mistake. (Riano, 2016)

Waiver of the parol evidence rule

Failure to invoke the benefits of the rule constitutes as waiver of the rule.
Inadmissible evidence may be rendered admissible by failure to object. (Riano, 2016)

Probative value
Even if the parol evidence is admitted, it does not mean that the court would give
probative value to the parol evidence. Admissibility is not the equivalent of probative
value or credibility. (Riano, 2016)

AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS MEANING OF

AUTHENTICATION
It is the process of proving the due execution and genuineness of a document.
NOTE: Not only objects but also documents introduced in evidence need to be
authenticated. It is a preliminary step in showing the admissibility of an evidence.
(Riano, 2016)

When authentication is NOT required

1. The writing is an ancient document (Sec. 21, Rule 132);
2. The writing is a public document or record (Sec. 19, Rule 132);

NOTE: A private document required by law to be recorded, while it is transformed

into a public document by the “public record” thereof, is not included in this
enumeration. Such recording does not make the private writing itself a public
document so as to make it admissible without authentication, e,g. birth certificate
recorded in the NSO is a public record, but it is still a private document. (Peralta &
Peralta, 2020, citing Herrera)

3. The writing is a notarial document acknowledged, proved or certified (Sec. 30, Rule
132); 4. The genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document have not been
 Page 10 of 18

specifically denied under oath by an adverse party (Sec 8, Rule 8, 2019 Amendments
to the Revised Rules on Evidence);
5. When such genuineness and due execution are immaterial to the issue;
6. The genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted (Sec 4, Rule
129, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence); and
7. The document is not being offered as genuine. (Sec. 20, Rule 132, 2019
Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS
For purposes of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or
private. (Sec. 19, Rule 132, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Public document
1. The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a
foreign country; 2. Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills
and testaments;
3. Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and conventions
which are in force between the Philippines and the country of source; and
4. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be
entered therein. (Sec. 19, Rule 132, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence)
➢ Admissible as evidence without need of further proof of its genuineness and
due execution;
➢ Evidence even against third persons, of the fact which gave rise to its due
execution and to the date of the latter;
➢ Certain transactions must be contained in a public document; otherwise they
will not be given any validity.

Private document
➢ All other writings are private. (Sec. 19, Rule 132, 2019 Amendments to the
Revised Rules on Evidence)
➢ Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
due execution and authenticity must first be proved;
➢ Binds only the parties who executed them or their privies, insofar as due
execution and date of the document are concerned.

NOTE: Church registries of births, marriages and deaths are no longer public writings
nor are they kept by duly authorized public officials. They are private writings and
their authenticity must therefore be proved, as are all other private writings in
accordance with the rules. (Llemos v. Llemos, G.R. No. 150162, January 26, 2007)

How to prove the due execution and authenticity of a private document Before any
private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved by any of the following means: 1. By anyone who saw the
document executed or written; 2. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker; or 3. By other evidence showing its due execution and
authenticity, Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is
claimed to be. (Sec. 20, Rule 132, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence)

WHEN EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY OF A PRIVATE WRITING IS NOT REQUIRED

1. When the private document is more than thirty (30) years old (ancient
document/authentic document rule) (Sec. 21, Rule 132, 2019 Amendments to the
Revised Rules on Evidence);
 Page 11 of 18

2. When the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document have not been
specifically denied under oath by the adverse party;
3. When the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted; and
4. When the document is not offered as authentic as implied. (Patula v. People, G.R.
No. 164457, April 11, 2012)

Requisites of ancient document/authentic document rule

1. That the private document be more than 30 years old;
2. That it be produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine;
and
3. That it is unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion. (Sec. 21,
Rule 132, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

NOTE: Ancient documents are considered from proper custody if they come from a
place from which they might reasonably be expected to be found. Custody is proper
if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin or if the circumstances of the particular
case are such as to render such an origin probable. If a document is found where it
would not properly and natural be, its absence from the proper place must be
satisfactorly accounted for. The requirement of proper custody was met when the
ancient document in question was presented in court by the proper custodian thereof
who is an heir or the person who woul naturally keep it. (Cerado-Siga v. Cerado, Jr.,
G.R. No. 185374, March 11, 2015)

NOTE: This rule applies only if there are no other witnesses to determine
authenticity.

GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING
Handwriting may be proved by:
1. A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument;
2. A person who is familiar or has acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person, his opinion as to the handwriting being an exception to the opinion rule;
3. A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting from the admitted
genuine specimens thereof; or
4. An expert witness. (Secs. 20 & 22, Rule 132; Sec. 52, Rule 130, 2019 Amendments
to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

NOTE: The law makes no preference, much less distinction among and between the
different means stated above in proving the handwriting of a person. Courts are not
bound to give probative value or evidentiary value to the opinions of handwriting
experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory. (Heirs of Salud v. Rural
Bank of Salinas, G.R. No. 202756, April 6, 2016)

Public documents as evidence When a public officer in the performance of his or her
duty makes an entry in the public record, the document of such entry is deemed
prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the entry. (Sec. 24, Rule 132, 2019
Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence) Its probative value may either be
substantiated or nullified by other competent evidence.

Proof of official records

Official records are written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, e.g. a written foreign law.

Official records may be evidenced by:

1. If it is within the Philippines:
a. An official publication thereof; or
 Page 12 of 18

b. By a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by
his deputy. (Sec. 24, Rule 132, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence)

2. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country,

a. An official publication thereof; or
b. By a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by
his deputy AND a certificate that such officer has the custody. (Apostille
Certificate or its equivalent) (Sec. 24, Rule 132, 2019 Amendments to the
Revised Rules on Evidence)

NOTE: If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, which is a
contracting party to a treaty or convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or
considered a public document under such treaty or convention pursuant to
paragraph (c) of Section 19, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form
prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to reciprocity granted to public
documents originating from the Philippines.

For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a contracting party to
a treaty or convention, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, viceconsul, or consular agent or by any officer in the
foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record
is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his or her office. (Sec. 24, Rule 132, 2019
Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may be presented

in evidence without further proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie
evidence of the due execution and genuineness of the document involved. The
certificate shall not be required when or convention between a foreign country and
the Philippines has abolished the requirement or has exempted the document itself
from this formality.

NOTE: Upon failure to comply with the abovementioned requirements, courts will
apply the doctrine of processual presumption.

A special power of attorney (SPA) executed before a city judge-public notary in a

foreign country, without the certification or authentication required under Section
25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, is not admissible in evidence in Philippine courts.
The failure to have the SPA authenticated is not a mere technicality but a question of
jurisdiction. (Riano, 2016 citing Lopez v. CA, G.R. No. 77008, December 29, 1987)

Irremovability of public records

GENERAL RULE: Any public record must not be removed from the office in which it
is kept.

EXCEPTION: Upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to
the just determination of a pending case. (Sec. 26, Rule 132, 2019 Amendments to the
Revised Rules on Evidence)

REASON: They have a common repository, from where they ought not to be removed.
Besides, these records by being daily removed would be in great danger of being lost.

ATTESTATION OF A COPY
The attestation must state, in substance:
 Page 13 of 18

1. That the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case
may be; and
2. It must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be
the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (Sec. 25, Rule 132, 2019
Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Proof of public record of a private document

1. By the original record; or
2. By a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate
certificate that such officer has the custody. (Sec. 27, Rule 132, 2019 Amendments to
the Revised Rules on Evidence)
PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD
Proof of lack of record of a document consists of written statement signed by an
officer having custody of an official record or by his deputy. The written statement
must contain the following matters:
1. There has been a diligent search of the record; and
2. That despite the diligent search, no record of entry of a specified tenor is found to
exist in the records of his office.

NOTE: The written statement must be accompanied by a certificate that such officer
has the custody of official records. (Sec. 28, Rule 132, 2019 Amendments to the
Revised Rules on Evidence)

The certification to be issued by the Local Civil Registrar must categorically state that
the document does not exist in his or her office or the particular entry could not be
found in the register despite diligent search. (Sevilla v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 167684,
July 31, 2006)

Any judicial record may be impeached by: (WCF)

1. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
2. Collusion between the parties (e.g. legal separation, annulment cases); or 3. Fraud
in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (Sec. 29, Rule 132, 2019
Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

NOTE: Fraud refers to extrinsic fraud, which is a ground for annulment of judgment.

Notarial documents
Documents acknowledged before a notary public is considered a public document
and enjoy the presumption of regularity. A notarized document is entitled to full faith
and credit upon its face.

The document may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or
document involved. (Sec. 30, Rule 132, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on
Evidence)

Evidentiary weight of a notarial document

A notarial document celebrated with all the legal requisites under a notarial
certificate is evidence of a high character, and to overcome its recitals, it is incumbent
upon the party challenging it to prove his claim with clear and convincing evidence.

A party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears
to have been altered after its execution must account for the alteration. He or
she may show that the alteration: (ACID)
1. Was made by another, without his concurrence;
 Page 14 of 18

2. Was made with the consent of the parties affected by it;

3. Was otherwise properly or innocently made; or
4. Did not change the meaning or language of the instrument.

NOTE: Failure to do at least one of the above will make the document inadmissible in
evidence. (Sec. 31, Rule 132)

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE

Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence unless
accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. (Sec. 33, Rule 132, 2019
Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence) The requirement that documents
written in an unofficial language must be accompanied with a translation in English
or Filipino as a prerequisite for its admission in evidence must be insisted upon by
the parties at the trial to enable the court, where a translation has been impugned as
incorrect, to decide the issue. Where such document, not so accompanied with a
translation in English or Filipino, is offered in evidence and not objected to, either by
the parties or the court, it must be presumed that the language in which the
document is written is understood by all, and the document is admissible in evidence.
(Heirs of Doronio v. Heirs of Doronio, G.R. No. 169454, December 27, 2007)
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears
in the place of its execution, unless the parties intended otherwise. (Sec. 11, Rule 130,
2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

When there are several provisions or particulars

In the construction of an instrument, where there are several provisions or
particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.
(Sec. 12, Rule 130, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Conflict between general and particular provision When a general and a

particular provision are inconsistent, the following rules shall be followed:
1. The particular provision is paramount to the general;
2. A particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. (Sec. 13,
Rule 130, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Interpretation according to circumstances

The proper construction of an instrument according to the circumstances shall
be as follows:
1. The circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject
thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown;
2. Such circumstances must be shown so that the judge may be placed in the position
of those who language he or she is to interpret. (Sec. 14, Rule 130, 2019 Amendments
to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Presumption on terms of writing

The terms of a writing shall be interpreted as follows:
1. It shall be presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation;
2. Evidence is admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or otherwise
peculiar signification; and
3. Evidence is admissible to show that it was so used and understood in the particular
instance, in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. (Sec. 15, Rule
130, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Conflict between written and printed

 Page 15 of 18

When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form,
and the two are inconsistent, the written controls the printed form. (Sec. 16, Rule 130,
2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

When the character of writing is difficult to decipher When the characters in

which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered, or the language
is not understood by the court, it can be proved by evidence of:
1. Persons skilled in deciphering the characters; or
2. Those who understand the language, is admissible to declare the characters or the
meaning of the language. (Sec. 17, Rule 130, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules
on Evidence)

When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the
different parties to it, it shall be construed as follows, to wit:
1. That sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other
understood it; and
2. When different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to
be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was
made. (Sec. 17, Rule 130, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence; Tan,
2014)

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Testimonial or oral evidence is an evidence elicited from the mouth of a witness. It is
sometimes called viva voce evidence which literally means “living voice” or by word
of mouth. In this kind of evidence, a human being (witness) is called to the stand, is
asked questions, and answers the question asked of him. (Riano, 2016)

QUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS
Who may be a witness A person may be a witness if he or she:
1. Can perceive;
2. Can make known his perceptions to others (Sec. 21, Rule 130, 2019 Amendments
to the Revised Rules on Evidence);
3. Must take either an oath or an affirmation; and
4. Must not possess any of the disqualifications imposed by law or the rules. (Riano,
2016)

Factors that do not afftect the competency of a witness

1. Religious belief;
2. Political belief;
3. Interest in the outcome of the case; or
4. Conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law. (Sec. 21, Rule 130, 2019
Revised Rules on Evidence)

Presumption of competency of a witness

GR: A person who takes the witness stand, is presumed to be qualified to testify. A
party who desires to question the competence of a witness must do so by making an
objection as soon as the facts tending to show incompetency are apparent. (Jones on
Evidence, Vol. 3, Sec. 796)

A prospective witness must show that he has the following abilities:

1. To observe – The testimonial quality of perception;
2. To remember – The testimonial quality of memory;
3. To relate – The testimonial quality of narration; and
4. To recognize a duty to tell the truth – The testimonial quality of sincerity. (Herrera,
1999)
 Page 16 of 18

EXCEPTIONS: There is prima facie evidence of incompetency in the following:

1. The fact that a person has been recently found of unsound mind by a court of
competent jurisdiction; or
2. That one is an inmate of an asylum. (Torres v. Lopez, 48 Phil. 772)

Time when the witness must possess the qualifications

The qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are determined as of the time
said witnesses are produced for examination in court or at the taking of their
depositions. (Regalado, 2008)

Burden of proof
The burden is upon the party objecting to the competency of a witness to establish
the ground of incompetency.

COMPETENCY OF WITNESS
➢ Refers to the basic qualifications of a witness.
➢ It is a matter of law or a matter of rule.
➢ It also includes the absence of any of the disqualifications imposed upon a
witness.

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS
➢ Refers to the believability of a witness.
➢ Refers to the weight and trustworthiness or reliability of the testimony.

*****A testimony must not only come from a credible witness, but must be credible
in itself, tested by human experience, observation, common knowledge and accepted
conduct that has evolved through the years. (People v. Mirandilla Jr., G.R. No. 186417,
July 27, 2011)

NOTE: Mental unsoundness of the witness which occurred at the time of taking his
testimony, affects only his credibility. Nevertheless, as long as the witness can convey
ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently intelligent answers to questions
propounded, she is a competent witness even if she is feeble-minded or is a mental
retardate or is a schizophrenic. (People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-39087, Apr. 27, 1984;
People v. Gerones, G.R. No. 91116, Jan. 24, 1991; People v. Baid, G.R. No. 129667, July
31, 2000)

GENERAL RULE: Discrepancies between the statements of the affiant in his affidavit
and those made by him or her on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him
or her because it is a matter of judicial experience that an affidavit, being taken ex
parte, is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate.

EXCEPTION: The credibility of witnesses will be impaired if:

1. The omission in the affidavit refers to a very important detail of the incident that
one relating the incident as an eyewitness would not be expected to fail to mention;
or
2. When the narration in the sworn statement substantially contradicts the testimony
in court.

The point of inquiry is whether the omission is important or substantial. (People v.

Calegan, G.R. No. 93846, June 30, 1994)
 Page 17 of 18

Findings on the credibility of a witness

GENERAL RULE: The determination of credibility of witnesses is properly within the
domain of the trial court as it is in the best position to observe their demeanor and
bodily movements. The findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect, and even finality.
(Llanto v. Alzona, G.R. No. 150730, January 31, 2005)

EXCEPTIONS:
1. The lower court has reached conclusions that are clearly unsupported by evidence;
or
2. It has overlooked some facts or circumstances of weight and influence which, if
considered, would affect the result of the case. (People v. Dalag, G.R. No. 129895, April
30, 2003)

NOTE: It is a jurisprudentially conceded rule that it is against human nature for a

young girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a
lifetime of shame, especially when her charge could mean the death or lifetime
imprisonment of her own father. "AAA" was without doubt telling the truth when she
declared that her father raped her on three separate occasions. The attempt to
discredit the testimony of "AAA" by the accused deserves no merit. When credibility
is in issue, the Court generally defers to the findings of the trial court considering that
it was in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses
themselves and observed their deportment during trial. Here, there is nothing from
the records that would impel this Court to deviate from the findings and conclusions
of the trial court as affirmed by the CA. (People v. Ending G.R. No. 183827, November
12, 2012)

DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES
1. Disqualification by reason of marriage or the Marital Disqualification Rule (Sec. 23,
Rule 130, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence);
2. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication:
a. Marital privilege;
b. Attorney-client privilege;
c. Doctor-patient privilege;
d. Minister-penitent privilege;
or e. Public officer as regards communications made in official confidence.
(Sec. 24, Rule 130, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

NOTE: The qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are determined as of the

time they are produced for examination in court or at the taking of the depositions.
Blood relationship does not disqualify a witness. (Bernardo, 2008, citing Angelo v.
CA, G.R. No. 83392, June 26, 1992)

ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION
➢ The proposed witness is prohibited to take the witness stand. (Herrera, 1999)
➢ Disqualification by reason of marriage. (Sec. 23, Rule 130)

RELATIVE DISQUALIFICATION
➢ The proposed witness is prohibited to testify only on certain matters specified
under Secs. 23 and 24 (now only Sec. 24), Rule 130 due to interest or
relationship, or to privileges of other parties. (Ibid.)
➢ Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. (Sec. 24, Rule 130)

Conviction of a crime as a ground for disqualification

 Page 18 of 18

GENERAL RULE: Conviction of a crime is not a ground for disqualification as a

witness. (Sec. 21, Rule 130, 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

EXCEPTIONS: Otherwise provided by law, such as the following: 1. Those who have
been convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony are
prohibited from being witnesses to a will (Art. 821, NCC); 2. Those who have been
convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude cannot be discharged to become a
State witness (Sec. 17, Rule 119; Sec. 10, R.A. 6981); and 3. Those who fall under the
disqualification provided under Secs. 23 and 24, Rule 130.