P. 1
63057370 EVIDENCE Reviewer Finals

63057370 EVIDENCE Reviewer Finals

|Views: 103|Likes:
Publicado porMinerva_Athena

More info:

Published by: Minerva_Athena on Oct 26, 2011
Direitos Autorais:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less






  • I. Admissibility
  • II. What Need Not be Proved
  • III. Rules of Admissibility
  • VI.Burden of Proof and Presumptions
  • VII. Presentation of Evidence


Page 1


EVIDENCE Introduction Definition – the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Sec. 1.) Scope of applicability – 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. (Rule 128, Sec 2.) Notes: The Rules on Evidence apply only when there is going to be a trial. Note that there can be a judgment on pleadings, by confession, consent and compromise etc. IN CIVIL CASES. Mere denial in the answer in a CIVIL CASE will not present a probandum hence no need for the court to try the case. Such general denial will be considered as an admission. In CRIMINAL CASES, We have to wait until the accused enters a plea. This time a general denial is allowed. If the accused enters a plea of guilty there is no probandum. However in CRIMINAL CASES, the court could still try the case if the case involves a heinous crime. The Rules on evidence are not selfexecuting. So the rule is any evidence submitted will be admitted so long as there is no objection. This principle is only for the purpose of admissibility. It does not mean that the court will take these irrelevant evidence in evaluating on the merits of the case. DIFFERENCE IN RULES ON EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES AND CIVIL CASES BASIS Criminal Civil Case Case Quantum Proof Beyond Prepond of Proof Reasonable erance of Doubt evidence Denial General Must be Denial Specific Allowed Denial Withdrawal Withdrawn Judicial of plea is Admissio Plea/Admis inadmissible n sion withdraw n becomes an extrajudi cial admissio n Cross Applicable Not Examinatio applicabl n in e

Summary Procedure Equiponder ance Rule

Accused acquitted

Presence of Circumstan tial Evidence Priviliged Communic ation- Dr.Patient Compulsio n as a witness

More one required

is Party who loses is the one who has burden of proof than One is suffices

Not applicable

Applicabl e

Cannot No compel prohibitio accused to be n, rules a witness provides only limitation s

Evidentiary Privilege- entitles the privilege holder to withhold competent evidence and, in some circumstances, to prevent others from revealing such evidence. The privilege is granted when the protected interest is considered important enough to outweigh the concern with determining the truth. The privilege holder need not be a party to the proceeding in question. Unlike a disqualification, a privilege can be waived. Privileges are often intended to preserve confidential relationships. Executive Privilege- members of the executive branch of government cannot legally be forced to disclose their confidential communications when such disclosure would adversely affect the operations or procedures of the executive branch. FACTUM PROBANDUM vs. FACTUM PROBANS Factum Probandum-proposition to be established. The fact/s in issue. Factum Probans- materials evidencing the proposition Notes: 1. In both CIVIL and CRIMINAL cases, the probandum contained in the pleadings could be changed in the pre-trial order. However, with respect to CRIMINAL CASES, the pre-trial order SHOULD NOT substantially change the accusation/indictment contained in the


Page 2


information, otherwise the case will be dismissed. 2. A court can validly try a fact in issue not raised in the pleadings or pre-trial order. Rule 10 provides that a fact in issue may be raised with the express or implied consent of the parties during the trial (Amendment to conform to evidence) 3. Ascertainment of probandum does not apply in special proceedings. (i.e. If there is a petition for probate of a will, even if there is no opposition the petitioner is still required by law to prove that the will has been duly executed in accordance with the Civil Code) EVIDENCE vs. PROOF Proof- is the effect of evidence. It is the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting from a consideration of the latter. Evidence- is the cause necessary to establish proof. I. Admissibility A. Relevance – The evidence has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (Rule 128, Secs. 3 and 4.) - In conclusion, relevancy is not determined by law nor the rules of court. It is determined purely by LOGIC. B. Competence – The evidence is not excluded by the law or the rules (Rule 128, Sec. 3.)  Do not confuse COMPETENT WITNESS from COMPETENT EVIDENCE. The COMPETENCY TEST of evidence applies to the TESTIMONY of the qualified witness. Since admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and competence, admissibility is therefore an affair of logic and law. On the other hand, the weight to be given to such evidence depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in Rule 133 and the jurisprudence laid down by the court. (People vs. Turco, 2000) Relevant evidence is one that has any value in reason as tending to prove any matter probable in an action. Evidence is said to be material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the

rules of substantive law and pleadings, while competent evidence is one that is not excluded by law in a particular case. (Bautista vs. Aparece, 1995) Exclusionary Rules under the 1987 Constitution 1.1 Secs. 2 & 3, Art. III – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. 1.2 Sec. 12, Art III – Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means, which vitiate the free will, shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. Sec. 17, Art III – No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This right is recognized under he Rules on Evidence, which provides that, it is the right of a witness not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law. [Sec. 3 (4), Rule 132, ROC) NOTES AND COMMENTS: The human body could be used as evidence without violating the right. Mechanical acts without the use of intelligence do not fall


Page 3


within the scope of the protection. Some of the acts which are not covered by the right of self-incrimination are the following: a. Fingerprinting, photographing nd paraffin testing, physical examination. (U.S. v. Tang, 23 Phil. 145_) b. Physical examination of a woman accused of adultery to determine if she is pregnant. (U.S. v. On Suy Hon, 36 Phil. 735; Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62) c. Undergoing ultra-violet rays examination to determine presence of flourescent powder on the hands. (People v. Tranca, 35 SCRA 455) d. Subpoena directing government officials to produce official documents or public records in their custody. e. Fitting the accused foot over a foot print, putting on a pair of trousers, etc. 2. Statutory Rules of Exclusion 2.1 Sec. 201, NIRC – An instrument, document or paper which is required by law to be stamped and which has been signed, issued, accepted or transferred without being duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court until the requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto and cancelled. 2.2 R.A. 4200 (Wire-tapping Act) – Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken work by using a device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone or walkietalkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described. x x Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained, obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictograph or the other devices enumerated in Sec. 1 of RA 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as “tapping” the wire or cable of a telephone

line. (Gaanan vs. IAC, 1986) RA 4200 expressly makes tape recordings of tapped conversations inadmissible in evidence absent a clear showing that both parties to the phone conversations allowed the recording. (Salcedo-OrtaÒez vs. CA, 1994) EXCLUSIONARY RULES RULES OF COURT 1. Best Evidence Rule 2. Parole Evidence 3. Hearsay Rule under the

Wigmore’s Axiom of Admissibility “None but facts having rational probative value are admissible”- ILLUSTRATION: In a trial for homicide, the fact is offered that the accused was requested, with others, to touch the corpse of the murdered man to see if blood flowed, but that he refused to do so; this is admissible, not because the flowing or retention of the blood at the guilty man’s touch would be rationally evidential of his guilt, but because his refusal to do could constitute a link to the chain of evidence necessary to produce a moral conviction of guilt. “Any fact having rational probative value is admissible, unless some specific rule forbids its admission”- ILLUSTRATION: In an issue involving forgery, the disposition of the person’s character as to acts of honesty or dishonesty is of some rational probative value towards showing that he did or did not do the act; it is therefore admissible, but this can only be done if the accused steps forward first and adduces evidence of his good moral character. Irrelevant vs. Incompetent vs. Inadmissible vs. Immaterial Evidence Irrelevant- no probative value; No tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue. It does not directly relate to a fact in issue. N.B. All facts and circumstances which afford reasonable inferences or throw light upon the probability of matter or matters contested are admissible in evidence, UNLESS excluded by some established principle of evidence, such as HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE, RULE ON PAROLE EVIDENCE and BEST EVIDENCE RULE. Collateral Matters- matters other than the facts in issue and which are offered as a basis merely for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue. These are not allowed unless satisfy


Page 4


ALL the requirements of relevancy. ILLUSTRATIONS: a. finger marks, foot prints and a bat left by the accused in the place of the crime b. The resemblance of a child to his alleged father to prove paternity of the latter c. Bloodstains on the clothing of the person charged with a crime d. The destruction or fabrication of evidence e. Flight of the accused. (N.B. Nonflight is not conclusive proof of innocence) f. Delay in the identification of victim’s assailant Incompetent- excluded by the rules or any law Inadmissible- not competent and irrelevant Immaterial- the offered evidential fact is directed to prove some probandum which is not properly in issue. (N.B.- The rules on substantive law and of pleading determine immateriality) Material evidence- proves a main fact which is the subject of the inquiry or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact or any fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of inquiry or which legitimately affects the credibility of any witness who testifies. Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence Direct- Evidence that directly proves a fact without need to make inference from another fact Example: The testimony of the prosecution witness claiming that he saw that it was actually the deceased who attacked the accused without the latter’s provocation is a direct evidence. Circumstantial- Indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence established Example: The testimony of the victim that he dreads the mere presence of the accused is direct evidence that the statement was made. It is likewise circumstantial evidence to show that this fear prevented the victim from attacking the accused without provocation. IN CRIMINAL CASES, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when: a. There is more than one circumstance b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to

produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt (Sec. 4 Rule 133) Cumulative v. Corroborative Cumulative- evidence of the same kind that tends to prove the same fact Ex. Two or more witnesses testify that they saw the event which the first witness claimed he saw, the subsequent testimonies are cumulative Corroborative- evidence which tends to confirm, validate or strengthen evidence already presented. Evidence may be of the same kind or different kind and tends to prove the same fact. Ex. A witness claims that he saw Mr. X sign the document subject of the action. Mr. X denies the authenticity of his signature. Evidence by a handwriting expert is corroborative. Positive v. Negative Evidence Positive- A witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts do exist or that a certain event happened Negative- A witness states that an event did not occur or that the facts alleged to exist did not actually exist. (Denial) Derivative Evidence- type of evidence that is inadmissible as proof because of the application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, which treats the original evidence and any evidence derived from it as tainted because of the illegal way in which it was obtained by agents of the government. Rebuttal Evidence- offered to contradict other evidence or to rebut a resumption of fact.

Admissibility v. Weight - Evidence is ADMISSIBLE when it is relevant and is not excluded by any rule. - Probative value or WEIGHT is to be determined by the court when it decides the case MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY Evidence is admissible for two or more purposes. The rule is when a fact satisfies all rules applicable to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule which would be applicable to it if offered for another purpose would not exclude it.


Page 5


ILLUSTRATION: An extrajudicial confession may be inadmissible as against a party who did not subscribe to it, yet such party may use said document as evidence of lack of guilt. CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY GR: The time for determining the admissibility of a particular fact is ordinarily the time when it is offered to the court. Exception: When some facts depend on some other facts needed to be established first in order that said former evidentiary facts would be admissible. ILLUSTRATION: Mr. P files an action for recovery of ownership of a parcel of land against Mr. D. The complaint alleges that Mr. P is the owner of the property. During the trial, Mr. P testifies and adduces evidence that a certain O bought the property from D. The testimony of O may be allowed if it would be shown the chain of events that led to the ownership of P of the land. CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY There is curative admissibility when a party offers an inadmissible fact which is received because there is no objection by the other party. The other party does not acquire the right to introduce in reply to the same kind of evidence, EXCEPT whenever it is needed for removing an unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. ILLUSTRATION: In an action for damages arising from a car accident, the plaintiff introduced evidence to show that on several occasions the defendant in the past had injured pedestrians because of his negligence. (This is inadmissible under Sec. 34 Rule 130- Prior acts as evidence). Under the concept of Curative admissibility the court must give the party against whom the evidence was admitted the chance to contradict or explain the alleged past acts he committed to counteract the prejudice which the improperly admitted evidence may have caused. II. What Need Not be Proved a. Facts which a court shall or may take judicial notice. (Secs. 1 and 2, Rule 129, ROC) b. Judicial admissions. (Sec. 4, Rule 129, ROC) c. Conclusive presumptions d. Disputable presumptions not disputed

Distinguish mandatory judicial notice from discretionary judicial notice. a. For mandatory judicial notice the court is compelled to take judicial notice because of the use of the word "shall" in Sec. 1, Rule 129, ROC WHILE for discretionary judicial notice the court is not compelled because of the use of the word "may" in Sec. 2, Rule 129, ROC. b. Mandatory judicial notice takes place at the court's own initiative WHILE discretionary judicial notice may take place at the court's initiative, or on request of a party. c. Discretionary judicial notice requires a hearing and presentation of evidence WHILE mandatory judicial notice does not require hearing and presentation of evidence.

A. Judicial Notice – Rule 129, Secs 1-3;
Rule 10, Sec. 8 1.When Mandatory – [EPF-SLAP-OL-MG] -Existence and territorial extent of states -Their political history -Forms of government -Symbols of nationality -Law of nations -Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals -Political constitution and history of the Philippines -Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Philippines -Laws of nature -Measure of time -Geographical divisions 2.When Discretionary -Matters of public knowledge -Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration -Matters which ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. 3.When Hearing is Necessary - During the trial: the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of ANY MATTER and allow the parties to be heard thereon. - After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal: the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such MATTER IS DECISIVE OF A MATERIAL ISSUE in the case.

(Alzua v. January 28. IF inferior court took judicial notice and there was an appeal. 1950. Blanco. which would have required no proof and became merely any extrajudicial admission requiring a formal offer in order to be admissible. (Tabuena vs. If the foreign law refers to common law doctrines and rules from which many of our laws were derived. (U. in the exercise of sound discretion. Pleadings. courts may not take judicial notice of foreign laws. Ibid. Pardo v. 1991) 2. CA. The finality of judgment in a case FOREIGN LAWS In general. the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission. -Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the record of other cases pending or heard before them notwithstanding they are pending before the same judge. 323) When foreign laws may be the subject of judicial notice. (Delgado v. B. though properly applicable is either not alleged or if alleged is not duly proved before a competent court. -How contradicted: ONLY by showing = That it was made through palpable mistake or = That no such admission was made Having been amended. 61 SCRA 360) e. When the local court is evidently familiar with the foreign law. EXCEPT in a few instances where. When the court takes judicial notice of a published treatise. 11 & 8. 308) Doctrine of Processual Presumption: Foreign law is the same as the law of the forum. (Sec. It arises if the foreign law. (Republic v. When interests of the public in ascertaining the truth is of paramount importance 4. the case is clearly referred to or the original or part of the records of the case are actually withdrawn from the archives and admitted as part of the record of the case then pending. The other case is so closely connected or interdependent 3. (Ex. In cases seeking to determine what is reasonable exercise of discretion 5. periodical or pamphlet on a subject of law as a learned treartise. Guanzon. however the court on its own initiative or that of any party may order the production of the record or any part thereof whenever the same shall be necessary in the resolution of the case or any incident therein or shall be introduced as evidence by the party requesting for its production. 126) COURT RECORDS: -Courts may take judicial notice of its own records of cases pending before it. Sec. Republic. period of perfecting appeals. 4 -Definition: admissions.S. 1984) FORMS OF ADMISSIONS: 1. In the absence of objection from the adverse party. Rule 130. The reason is that violations of the ordinances are usually vested to the inferior court EXCLUSIVELY in the exercise of their original jurisdiction.hlp©2009 Page 6 8/24/20116 MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES Courts are not mandated to take judicial notice of municipal ordinances unless the charter of the concerned city provides for such judicial notice. When the foreign statute is acepted by the Philippine governemnt. Admissions in pre-trial of civil cases and criminal cases (In criminal cases the admission must be reduced in writing and signed by accused and counsel. 37 Phil. with the knowledge of the adverse party. such court taking the appeal should likewise take judicial notice. When a foreign judgmen containing foreign law is recognized for enforcement. ROC) f. 48. 4 Rule 118) 3. v. Judicial Admissions – Rule 129. . Rule 129. or at the request or with the consent of the parties. 1967). When the foreign law refers to the law of nations. 85 Phil. made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case -Proof is not required. (City of Manila vs. they may take judicial notice of such foreign laws of which they are evidently familiar.Sec. ROC) c. CA. Implied admissions in the modes of discovery (Depositions. L2546. a.) d. (Sec. 46. (Sec. Implied admissions of allegations of usury and in actionable documents if not specifically denied under oath (Sec. 21 Phil. Garcia. verbal or written. Johnson. (Torres vs. Exceptions: 1.) -Records of preliminary investigation shall not form part of the record. Rule 8) 2. Rule 39. Republic. 1. But INFERIOR COURTS sitting in the respective municipalities or cities are MANDATED to take judicial notice. b.

examined or viewed by the court.e. A withdrawn plea of guilt is inadmissible. Admissions in superseded pleadings are extrajudicial admissions which must be proven. where defendant admits allegations but sets up grounds such as lack of jurisdiction etc.Rule 26. ethnological and racial characteristic. It is not essential that an admission is contrary to the interest of party at the time it is made. ILLUSTRATIONS: Footprints A bloody foot print was found upon a floor near the dead body of a person. the court is given enough discretion to determine which object evidence should be presented. Adopted Confessions A co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted the other’s confession by not questioning its truthfulness.B. it may be exhibited to. It is enough that it be INCONSISTENT with the position a party takes in his pleadings or at trial. 1. Rules of Admissibility A. dress and manners may be taken into consideration. However. ) 4. Is there an exclusionary rule when it comes to object evidence? There is none. upon determination whether or not it will result to scandal or it does not work any additional benefit to the plaintiff or that it will give undue prejudice to the defendant. the natural recourse is for the court to order an ocular inspection and go to the object in its place and observe it there. as where it was made in his presence and he did not demonstrate against his being implicated therein III. 8 Rule 10) [N.) Notes: 1. AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE (VIEW OF AN OBJECT) . -A physical comparison may be made between a minor Chinese applying for admission into the country with his alleged father. customs. Dismissed pleadings are likewise extrajudicial admissions] 5. the court took into account his appearance and judged that he was a youth of 18 or 19 years of age. 308) Resemblance.B. Upon placing his foot over the foot print it was found that his foot corresponded exactly to said footprint.Rule 23. Motion to dismiss. his personal appearance. Object (Real) Evidence –Rule 130. Admissions in amended pleadings (Sec. . (i. 43 Phil.Where deposition of subscribing witnesses . . unlike in civil cases where a withdrawn judicial admission is considered an extrajudicial admission) 6. -In determining the age of the accused who had no positive information on the subject. Averments in pleadings not deemed admissions even if there is failure to make a specific denial: a) Immaterial allegations. Age or Parentage -To determine whether a person is alien or not.Where the object in question cannot be produced in court because it is immovable or inconvenient to remove. b) Conclusions and nonunltimate facts. language. Failure to specifically deny under oath w/in 15 days a Request for Admission in a pending case. Race. the accused was taken to the house where the incident happen.Evidence addressed to the senses of the court. (US v. Zara. Adoptive Admissions A party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person. HELD: Proof of this circumstance is admissible. c) Amount of unliquidated damages.When an object is relevant to the fact in issue. 2. Note: Admissions in pleadings may not always be considered as judicial admissions because there are hypothetical admissions in civil cases. Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive upon a client absent any gross negligence which deprives counsel of due process of law or there is outright deprivation of property or liberty. Affirmative defenses in an answer. Upon being arrested. Plea of guilt in criminal case (N. notwithstanding that no photograph of the footprint was submitted in evidence and that the board itself upon which the footprint was made was not produced in court. Photographs .hlp©2009 Page 7 8/24/20117 Interrogatories. Sec.

NLRC. any printout or other output readable by sight. 2. . words. Sec. (Tan It v. -Photographs may be admissible upon proof of their exactness and accuracy by the photographer himself who can testify of his personal knowledge of the correctness of the representation. (Sison v. No. (Mahilum v. . shown to reflect the data accurately. April 13. Ballots . 17 SCRA 482) Computer printouts. and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice. 51 Phil. symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE . is an original. 1977. Exceptions: 1. or a model) Photographs: Must faithfully represent what it depicts (Same rules apply to motion pictures and recordings) X-Rays: Must show location and extent of injury Scientific tests. the Supreme Court held that computer printouts which were not signed because they are unsigned. Map. et al. Sun Insurance Office. (ex. Every ballot constitutes the will of every voter. People. 1999. demonstrations by physical act and experiments: This is a matter of judicial discretion. 1) In a labor case. a photographic copy of the will may be presented to the witnesses on their examination and they may be asked the same question with respect to said copy as if it were the original will and testimony as to the identity of the photographic copy shown to the witnesses is admissible in evidence. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. and 4. The faithful representation of the photograph may be proved prima facie by the testimony of those who were present at the time it was taken. 1. The value of a photograph lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original. have nonetheless consistently required some proof of authenticity or reliability as condition for the admission of documents. et al. Court of Appeals. 212) NOTES: The photographer is not the only witness who can identify the pictures. When the original has been lost or destroyed. Documentary Evidence – Rule 130. G. without bad faith on the part of the offeror. Best Evidence Rule – Rule 130. There is thus no guarantee that the message sent was the same message received. v.one which or represents demonstrates the real thing. figures.R. (Evidence Code of California. diagram. 117221. the court may admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. photograph. Sec. while adhering to a liberal view in the conduct of proceedings before administrative agencies.Every ballot needs to be presented in a case of election protest. Not one of the 18 print-out copies submitted by IBM was ever signed. Neither were the print-outs certified or authenticated by any company official who could properly attest that these came from IBM’s computer system or that the data stored in the system were not and/or could not haved been tampered with before the same were printed out.. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole. B. and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time the picture was taken. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. 3. Added by Stats. prom. The Court went on further to say that its decisions. either by the sender or the receiver.hlp©2009 Page 8 8/24/20118 to a will are taken.. or by any other competent witness who can testify as to its exactness and accuracy.Writings or any material containing letters. Once proved.. Secs. 2. Inc. 75-76) Photocopies or xerox copies of signed documents are not duplicate originals because they are not signed. IBM Philippines. If the data are stored in a computer or similar device. or cannot be produced in court. 3-4 General Rule: When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself. numbers. 250 SCRA 58.

1. 2 When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time. Medical Certificate . He may show that the alteration was made: a) by another. 1959) The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. 3 When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business. or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original. the medical certificate alone without the testimony of the examining physician is inadmissible (People v. the proponent has to comply with the rule that if the original writing is not in an official language (English or Filipino).Where the custom broker’s authorized representative accepted the cargo “OK and complete” as shown in the surveyor’s report countersigned by him and it was obviously his assigned task to note defects in the cargo. (Zuellig v. one being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction.F. Republic.The place of obtaining a residence certificate and the date contained are not conclusive as to the real residence or domicile of a person owning said certificate. Carbon copies are deemed duplicate originals. 3) If there is an alteration. 226 SCRA 398) 3. 1) The requirements of authentication of documents must be met. 2. or c) made with the consent of the parties . Allied Free Workers Union. 768) 4. Sec. C. Accounts and Account Books . he must explain such alteration. They may be introduced as evidence without accounting for the nonproduction of the original. Notwithstanding the foregoing. Tax declaration . 83 Phil. it is his duty to give to the court a translation thereof.Baptismal certificate is not conclusive proof of filiation being hearsay 2.An audit made by or the testimony of a private auditor is inadmissible in evidence as proof of the original records. 18 SCRA 462) . or by chemical reproduction. Baptismal and Marriage Certificate . 2) After authentication. There must be proof of authentication.To prove torture inflicted by the police. books of accounts. all the entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.They are only evidence to prove the administration of the sacraments on the dates therein specified . (Compania Maritima vs. (Gacos v. Rules on Electronic Evidence (Rule 4) – Sec. (People vs. Copies as equivalent of the originals – When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents.It can be used as evidence that a portion of land had been sold.hlp©2009 Page 9 8/24/20119 Original of a Document 1 The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. with identical contents. b) without his concurrence. However this applies only when the writing is a private document. 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. (People vs. Tan. or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original. Tandoy. shown to reflect the data accurately. or by mechanical or electronic re-recording. Inc. It does not apply when the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed or in the circumstances relevant to its execution. reports or the like. Villagracia. 77 SCRA 24) After complying with the BEST EVIDENCE RULE will the court necessarily admit the original writing? No.. (Insurance Company of North America vs. Residence Certificate . all such copies are equally regarded as originals. Sharp & Co. or from the same matrix. 212 SCRA 8) 5. CA. or in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original. said acceptance—if not being outright upon the custom’s broker—is at least evidence of the condition of the goods when thus received. copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if: a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original. 1990) SOME EXAMPLES: 1.

or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged. or (2) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. no other evidence of its authenticity is required. 22.R. G. Diaz. p. If all requisites have been met. It is enough that the circumstances show that the writing is in his possession or under his control. How Proven = Rule 132.2 When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control.Ancient Document Rule = Rule 132.How Genuineness of Handwriting is Proven = Rule 132. Secondary Evidence – Rule 130. absolute absence. . Secs. there is. (Compania Maritima vs. Sec. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison made by the witness or the court.Its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. or dissimilarities. 2.1. in a given case. The voluminous character of the document must be established before evidence other than the original may be introduced. VII. Commission on Elections. 22 It may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write. Commission on Elections. its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (1) by anyone who say the document executed or written." (Punzalan v. or e) The alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. he fails to produce the document. 21 (Not Required to Authenticate) Requisites: (1) The private document is more than 30 years old.1 Instances when secondary evidence may be introduced: 2.3 when original document is a public record. upon proof of (1) its execution or existence and (2) cause of its unavailability. No. Allied Free Workers. 1977) In the case where the original is in the custody of the adverse party.If after reasonable notice is given to the adverse party to produce the document and after satisfactory proof of the existence of the document is made. April 27. 1998 citing Lorenzo v.G. . The order stated must be followed. secondary evidence may be presented.hlp©2009 Page 10 8/24/201110 affected by it. (Villa Rey Transit vs. with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered.1. or manifest dearth. (Punzalan v. 1968) All duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before using copies as . cited in Francisco on Evidence. destroyed or cannot be produced in court) . PRIVATE DOCUMENTS. (2) It is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. 132435 prom. 2. 4110-4111. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. 5-8 2. or direct or circumstantial competent evidence of the character of a questioned handwriting. 674) Questions involving the mere similarity or dissimilarity of handwritings could be determined by the court itself as authorized under Sec. 20 Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence. much weight should not be given to characteristic similarities. or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.1. (3) It is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion. it is not necessary that it be in the actual possession of the adverse party.The offeror. . or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. Vol. Secondary evidence is admissible where the adverse party denies having it in his possession. 1997 Edition.1 when original document is unavailable (lost. or d) was otherwise properly or innocent made. Sec. without bad faith on his part may prove its contents by: = A copy = A recital of its contents in some authentic document = The testimony of witnesses. . supra) 2. 2. between the questioned handwriting and an authentic one. Not much weight is given to handwriting experts. therefore. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court by making a comparison of the disputed handwriting "with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. 53 O. Ferrer. Unless. Sec. Part I. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.2 A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects it is not obliged to offer it as evidence.

Example: Defendant sold to plaintiff a distilling apparatus of guaranteed . 4) When purchaser retains for himself a part of purchase price. any of the matters enumerated above. [N. or (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. the law of negotiable instruments. Exceptions: A party may present evidence to – a. but the property sold is simply a piece of land. and the law of wills. 2) Vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise. Modify. The contract is void. 3) When another instrument extending period of redemption is executed. 5) Vendor assumes tax. NCC presumes that a deed of sale is an equitable mortgage when: 1] price of sale with right to purchase is unusually inadequate. Explain or c. (De Vera vs. mistake or imperfection in the written agreement. and evidence aliunde may be admitted by the court to explain or add to its meaning. Reasons for the parol evidence rule: 1) When the parties have reduced their agreement in writing. It arises from the face of the document itself. But if in that deed of sale where Juan dela Cruz is the vendee. Add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: (a) An intrinsic ambiguity. There is an ambiguity what particular land is sold as there is no description. But it turns out that there are two persons who carry the name Juan de la Cruz. It was made part of the rules of evidence in order that it may be considered in all its phases in one place. which under the Rules cannot allow be corrected and converted into a valid contract. and there is only one Juan dela Cruz. 2) it is presumed that they have made the writing 3) the only repository and memorial of the truth. It is part of the law of contracts. between the parties and their successors in interest. there is a vendee and there is an object and consideration. If you read the document there is really nothing wrong because there is a vendor.hlp©2009 Page 11 8/24/201111 evidence. The defect can be remedied by the introduction of testimonial evidence or other documentary evidence to show to the court who is the Juan dela Cruz mentioned in the deed of sale as the vendee.B. NO evidence (testimonial or documentary) of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. Aguilar. ILLUSTRATION: The vendee can validly tell the court that the deed of sale is not really one of sale but one or mortgage as long as he puts in issue in the pleadings. Here we cannot introduce evidence aliunde. General Rule: When the terms of an AGREEMENT (including WILLS) have been reduced to WRITING. 6) Other circumstances] ILLUSTRATION: There is a sale of a piece of land in favor of Juan dela Cruz. b. (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. This arises by the use of equivocal word/s which is susceptible of more than one interpretation. The ambiguity is extrinsic. it is considered as containing ALL the terms agreed upon and there can be. That document is intrinsically ambiguous because we do not know who the vendee in that sale. 1983) 3. It is founded upon the substantive rights of the parties. (c) The validity of the written agreement. Parol Evidence Rule – Rule 130. 9 Nature of parol evidence rule: It is not a rule of evidence but of substantive law.  US cases and some Philippine cases recognized intermediate ambiguity. Sec. Art. 1602. and 4) whatever is not found in the writing must be understood to have been waived or abandoned.

32) c. changing. 136 SCRA 410) d. (Lese v. there is no written agreement yet to which the parol evidence may apply. Halili. 40 Phil. separate from the sale itself.Y. 506) What is the coverage of the parol evidence rule and what are the exceptions to the parol evidence rule ? a. Examples of collateral agreements which CAN be proved by parol evidence: 1) An agreement of reconveyance is a distinct agreement. b.000 liters daily. although the two agreements are usually contained in one and the same document.. 61) 2) Inducements and representations which led to the execution of an agreement may be proven by parol evidence because they do not vary the terms of the agreement. notwithstanding that such agreements may have the effect of adding to. 91 Phil. therefore. 93 Phil. Example of agreement which CANNOT be proven by parol evidence: Express trusts concerning real property cannot be proven by parol evidence because title and possession cannot be defeated by oral evidence which can easily be fabricated and contradicted. 40 Phil. (PNB v. (Sinaon.. probable by parol evidence. or even altogether abrogating the contract of the parties as evidenced by the writing. 2) If the two agreements refer to the same subject-matter.hlp©2009 Page 12 8/24/201112 capacity of 6. (Palanca v. Yacapin v. 148. Bough v. (Woodhouse v. Here the word “capacity” was susceptible of two interpretations. Contemporaneous agreement. SC held that parol evidence is admissible to show which of the two interpretations meant by the parties. Kilayco. Halili. et al. 93 Phil. (Robles v. Tests to determine whether a contemporaneous oral agreement is separate and distinct from the written agreement and therefore provable by parol evidence: 1) The first test is the subject-matter of the two agreements. Not covered. Lamprecht. Neri. Lizarraga Hnos. 196 N. 526) b. 1986) subject-matter of the written agreement is different from that of the contemporaneous oral agreement. 34 Phil. therefore. 209) 3) Parol evidence is admissible to prove an independent and collateral agreement which constitutes an inducement to the making of the sale or part of the consideration thereof. 756) 3) It also does not apply if the issue revolves around fraud and false representation since they are incidental to the execution and not to the integration. Defendant claimed that the phrase referred to “receiving” capacity. et al. A contemporaneous agreement is one entered into at the same time as the agreement which has been reduced to writing. Cantiveros. CA. (Laureano v. Seeto. then the latter is a separate and distinct agreement and. modifying. 526. REASON: Before the happening of the condition. 5) Verbal assurances given by the indorser of an out-of-town check to the employees of the bank where it was presented for encashment that he would refund the amount if the check should be dishonored by the drawee bank is a collateral NOTES: a. Sorongon. 1) Subsequent agreements. v. Fred Wilson & Co.. 2) Collateral agreements which although oral and contemporaneous with the writing are separate and distinct agreements. Halili. provable by parol evidence. Only prior and contemporaneous agreements which are deemed to have been merged in the writing conformably to the "integration of the agreement rule. (Woodhouse vs. then the contemporaneous oral agreement is separate and distinct and. 387) 4) A condition precedent not stipulated in writing is provable by oral evidence. If the .. (Lechugas vs. 50 Phil. 37 Phil. 1953) 4) It does not apply either when third parties are involved." (Woodhouse v. Covered. the test is to determine whether or not the contemporaneous oral agreement is separable.

or otherwise peculiar signification. Rule 130. 11. Seeto. and therefore. Best evidence rule distinguished from parol evidence rule: 1) Under the best evidence rule. 91 Phil. Rule 130. — The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation. ROC) PAROLE EVIDENCE DISTINGUISHED FROM STATUTE OF FRAUDS The Statute of Frauds requires that certain agreements be proved by writing or by some note or memorandum thereof in order to be enforceable. and not strangers may invoke the protection of the parol evidence rule. 3. De la Trinidad. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. the intention of the parties is to be pursued. Seeto. SEC. the issue is contents of a writing (Sec. Rule 130. including the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it. On the other hand. (PNB v. general and particular provisions. so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he is to interpret. qualify. 9. 10. Interpretation of Documents – Rule 130. SEC. [U. 91 Phil. modify. the circumstances under which it was made. technical. secondary evidence is offered to prove the contents of a writing. SEC. and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent. ILLUSTRATION: In a deed of sale of a parcel of land covered by: TCT 12345. 91 Phil. There is really a land covered by TCT 12345 with same technical description however it is not located in Muntinlupa. Interpretation according to circumstances. - . Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. ROC) WHILE under the parol evidence rule. variation or contradiction of the terms of a written agreement by “parol evidence”. 5 How. in which case the agreement must be construed accordingly. which is not allowed unless the case falls under any of the exceptions (Sec. SEC. the latter is paramount to the former. Its object is to prohibit alteration. to be adopted as will give effect to all. (Tan Machan v. or contradict the terms of a complete written agreement. may be shown.S.hlp©2009 Page 13 8/24/201113 agreement separate and distinct from the indorsement. 756. vary. and were so used and understood. 3. Preston. in the particular instance. by virtue of which the first bank was induced to cash the same. change. 9. Seeto. 2) Under the best evidence rule. but evidence is admissible to show that they have a local. SEC. 9. there is no issue as to contents of a writing (Sec. provable by parol evidence. 756. such a construction is.) The fact that parties who appear to have signed as principals did so as merely sureties is provable by parol evidence. (PNB v. Rule 130. 756) 6) Any prior or contemporaneous conversaion in connection with a note or its indorsement may be proved by parol evidence. The erroneous description will not invalidate the contract. —The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution. Philips v. —In the construction of an instrument where there are several provisions or particulars. Interpretation of a writing according to its legal meaning. 10-19 SEC. ROC) Only the parties and their successors in interest. which is not allowed unless the case falls under any of the exceptions. the purpose of the offer of parol evidence is to change. 14. located in City of Muntinlupa. 684) FALSA DEMONSTRATION NON NOCET “False description will not invalidate an instrument” The erroneous description will be considered as a surplusage. 9 Wigmore 148) 8. the Parole Evidence Rule has nothing to do with the manner of proving agreements. Rule 130. Interpretation according to intention. Secs. —For the proper construction of an instrument. ROC). —In the construction of an instrument. ROC) WHILE under the parol evidence rule. if possible. Written words control printed. — When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form. 12. 3 Phil. (Sec. unless the parties intended otherwise. modification. 15. 4. but in Laguna. (Sec. Peculiar signification of terms. 13. (PNB v.] 278) 7) An extrinsic agreement between indorser and indorsee which cannot be embodied in the instrument without impairing its credit may be proved by parol evidence.

17.). Ibid. Mendoza. Rule 130. Ibid. or who understand the language. President of the Philippines or other country Disqualifications – a.). —An instrument may be construed according to usage. 18. can make their known perception to others. 19. —When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it. Mental incapacity or immaturity (Sec. Parental and filial testimonial privilege rule (Sec. GR: A disinterested person could be compelled to give his testimony through subpoena Exceptions: Persons who are immune from the process of subpoena by tradition. at the time of their production for examination. SEC. SEC. Other examples are: a. (People vs. is admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language. ROC). Testimonial Evidence Qualifications of Witnesses – Rule 130. the former controls the latter. Of two constructions. 16.).Those whose mental condition. Ibid. Ibid).) [Applies to Rules on Electronic Evidence] 1) Marital privileged communication rule (Sec. Interpretation according to usage.)(N/A in criminal cases) 4) Priest-penitent privileged communication rule (Sec. or the language is not understood by the court. 1993) Requisites of competency of a child as witness: capacity of observation.). SEC. The negotiations under the Witness Protection Program (Accused discharged as state witness) A. the former is to be adopted. and 5) Public officer privileged communication rule (Sec. 3) Doctor-patient privileged communication rule (Sec. which preferred. the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters. Ibid. and perceiving. and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper. c. Ibid. Ibid. Marriage (Sec. Under Rules on Alternative dispute Resolution. 22 General Rule: During their marriage. 2) Lawyer-client privileged communication rule (Sec. Privileged communication (Sec. neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse. Rule 130. 24 [b]. —When an instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations. Sec. Sec. 24 [e]. —When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be deciphered. in order to determine its true character. C. 9 [e]. that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other understood it. Construction in favor of natural right. 1996) B.) d. Experts and interpreters to be used in explaining certain writings. (Sec. Salomon. SEC.Can perceive. convention or law: a. 23. and capacity of communication. Information derived by editors. 21 . 22. 20 . capacity of recollection. Ibid. b. Sec. 21. Exceptions: . 24 [a]. By reason of mental incapacity or immaturity – Rule 30. 24. A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness.hlp©2009 Page 14 8/24/201114 and the two are inconsistent. 24 [d]. 24 [c]. that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision is made. 25. .Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully. Marital Disqualification – Rule 130. reporters and publishers c. is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others. Rule 119. e. information or communication given by parties who participate in ADR is confidential b. Ambassadors of foreign countries by virtue of treaty obligations b. (People vs. ROC) Note: Conviction of a crime does not disqualify a person from testifying but may disqualify him from being discharged as a state witness. Death or insanity of adverse party (Sec. one in favor of natural right and the other against it. ROC) Note: This is not an exclusive enumeration of the Rules on privilege communication.

hlp©2009 Page 15 8/24/201115 - In a civil case by one against the other or. . 23 Sometime called the “Survivor’s disqualification rule” Parties or assignor of parties to a case. Marital disqualification ceases after dissolution of marriage -Privileged communication lasts even after the death of either spouse d. (H&W both defendants). The son asked her mother to testify in his favor. A subpoenaed the wife to be his hostile witness which is allowed in civil cases. against . So the rule on spousal immunity does not apply.Marital disqualification is applicable only when one or both spouses are parties b. or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted. People v. 98) against or for whom the testimony is being proferred. the husband filed a motion in court for the quashing of the subpoeana. Arambulo. C.. Francisco. Dead Man’s Statute – Rule 130. time of the trial. or 2) By calling the other spouse as witness (Ibid. A told the court now that if he cannot compel the wife to be an adverse witness. As long as a valid marriage is in existence at the . 78 Phil. A told the court that this is not a case where the wife will be giving testimony as an adverse witness in favor of the plaintiff. then he should be allowed to get the deposition of the wife. When the wife received the subpoena. on the ground that there is a violation of the rule on marital disqualification/spousal immunity.Other representative DIFFERENCE B/W PRIVILEGE AND MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION a. because under the Rules of Court when the deposition of a person is taken. the marital disqualification may still be invoked e. Privilege is applicable regardless of whether the spouses are parties or not . Privilege protects the hallowed confidences inherent in marriage b/w husband and wife and therefore guarantees the preservation of the marriage and further the relationship between the spouses as it encourages the disclosure of confidential matters without fear of revelation. A conceded. Ruling of the Court: Even if the purpose is just to get the deposition of the wife the rule on spousal immunity applies. If the rule is not there.In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. she might give testimony that he will harm her interest and that of her husband. 694) The privilege could be invoked even if the spouse is testifying in favor of the spouseparty because damaging testimony may be elicited during the cross-examination.An executor or .Administrator or . 8 Phil. SC held that there will be a violation of the spousal immunity rule. So that there will be a violation of the spousal immunity. Sec. the witness-spouse cannot be compelled to testify—even where the crime charged is against the witness’ person. Marital disqualification is more concerned with the consequences. The right to invoke this disqualification belongs to the spouse-party (Ortiz v. Note: As long as there is a case INVOLVING the husband OR wife. Ruling of the Court: Spousal immunity applies. perjury and domestic disunity may result. it does not necessarily mean that the deponent will be used as a witness in court. (Marriage for convenience) CASE: A filed a complaint against husband and wife for annulment of a contract by reason of fraud. The privilege applies to testimonies on confidential communication only -Marital disqualification applies to testimony on any fact c. and even though the marriage was entered into for the express purpose of suppressing the testimony. It may be waived 1) By a failure to interpose timely objection. ‘Marrying the Witness’ An accused can effectively “seal the lips” of a witness by marrying the witness. since it is only a mode of discovery. Even if the communication is not confidential. the disqualification is absolute. CASE: A son filed a complaint against his own father for recovery of property or some assets. If the wife was allowed to testify as an adverse witness for the plaintiff.

C is incompetent to testify as to the transaction he had with Mr. 224) 3) Communications overheard by third persons remain confidential as between the spouses.. Sec. (Icard v. 2336) 2) Communications made in the presence of third parties are not confidential. (Goni. et al. (Tongco v. unless the third person may be considered as an agent of the spouses. (Sexton v. the officers or stockholders thereof are not disqualified. Marasigan. 93 Phil. assignor of plaintiff. Note: The assumption is any communication given by one spouse to the other is presumably confidential because there is no standard given in the Rules. or person in whose behalf the case is prosecuted may testify. Wigmore. 96 Phil. who are not the plaintiff. 50 Phil. Vianzon. Reyes. 47 Phil. Co Cho. or = In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.hlp©2009 Page 16 8/24/201116 of a deceased person. 698) 3) By calling witnesses to testify on prohibited matters. v.. or the person of unsound mind. Mr. A day before the agreed date of payment. 622) 4) When the plaintiff is the executor. but the third person may be called upon to . (Go Chi Gun v. or against a person of unsound mind. v. D and claims the payment of the debt. 12 Phil. 1) 2) By cross-examining the plaintiff on prohibited matters. Can the privilege be invoked? YES. 622) 6) When the survivor's testimony refers to a negative fact. Hipolito. during or after the marriage. 54 Phil. et c. 419) 8) The adverse party is competent to testify to transactions or communications with the deceased or incompetent person which were made with an agent of such person in cases in which the agent is still alive and competent to testify. D to execute a promissory note. Court of Appeals. Mr. de Goitia. Mr. Miller. In this case. Vianzon. 96 Phil. C went to the executor of the estate of Mr. upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such person of unsound mind. Exceptions to the survivor’s disqualification rule: 1) Ordinary witnesses. (Floyd v. 493) 4) When the plaintiff's deposition is taken by the representative of the estate or when counsel for the representative crossexamined the plaintiff as to matters occurring during the deceased's lifetime. but the third person who overheard may be called upon to testify. 698) 5) When the defendant or defendants. 129 Ia. (People v. Sec. 76 Phil. D approaches Mr. Mr. 330) 3) When there is an imputation of fraud against the deceased. the defendant or defendants are free to testify against the plaintiff. D. 487. cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring BEFORE the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. the plaintiff is not barred from testifying to such fraud. (Marella v. C gives Mr. 24 (a) Husband or the wife. Azur. CASE: If the communication is made in front of the children of the husband and wife. are sued in their personal and individual capacities.. et al. whether legally or illegally. 626) 4) Communications coming into the hands of third persons. et al. 144 SCRA 231) CASE: Mr. Privileged Communication 1. (Mendezona v. Atlantic Gulf. (Tongco v. administrator or legal representative of the deceased. D the amount. Court of Appeals. Applications of the marital privileged communciation rule: 1) Every communication between spouses is presumed to be confidential. C did not require Mr. cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage . But the testimony of the adverse party must be confined o those transactions or communications which were had with the agent. C to borrow P100. the plaintiff may testify against them. (Goni. D. 71 Phil. 61 Ind. (Francia v. remain confidential as between the spouses.. Mr.EXCEPT: = In a civil case by one against the other. et al. (Arroyo v. (Go Chi Gun v. (Lichauco v.. 84 Phil. though heirs of the deceased. 557) 7) When the survivor's testimony is favorable to the deceased. 144 SCRA 231) How protection of the dead man’s statute is waived: 1) By not objecting to plaintiff's testimony on prohibited matters. D died. Marital Privilege – Rule 130. 968) 2) When the plaintiff is a corporation. Co Cho. vda.000 to be paid next year. Sexton. if the children are still minors. Carlos. 50 Phil.

he waives any privilege he may have in that action regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined him in respect of the same examination. be examined as to . so long as the mental or physical condition is in dispute. so that it its waivable only by him or her. 140 N. nor can an attorney's secretary. Privilege does not extend to communications where the client’s purpose is the furtherance of a future intended crime or fraud 3. be examined as to . The attorney-client privilege may not be invoked to refuse to divulge the identity of the client. 37 Phil. stenographer. 24 (b) An attorney cannot. It is he who can invoke the privilege. (U. without the consent of the person making the confession.Any confession made to or . without the consent of the patient. which information was necessary to enable him to act in capacity. (Ibid.This privilege belongs to the patient. without the consent of his client.S. (2) When disclosure would open the client to liability.When the patient answers questions on cross examination. Priest. there is waiver . 1992) 4. (People v. 484) 2. the court may order a party to submit to a physical or mental examination. (People. Physician-Patient Privilege – Rule 30. EXCEPT: (1) When a strong probability exists that revealing the name would implicate that person in the very same activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice. and Hammons. Sec. 24 (c) A person authorized to practice medicine. concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. Antipolo.hlp©2009 Page 17 8/24/201117 testify.His advice given thereon in the course of. Sec. (Penn. (Regala vs. - It is enough that the client reasonably believed that the person consulted is a lawyer.The waiver may be by a contract as in medical or life insurance . professional employment. and which would blacken the reputation of the patient.Penitent Privilege – Rule 30.Under Rule 28 ROC. 100 Ind. or clerk be examined. It is impliedly waived like any other privilege rule. 1996) LAST LINK DOCTRINE: Nonprivileged information. without the consent of the client and his employer.Y. 726) Waiver of the marital privileged communication rule: The privilege is claimable by the spouse not called as witness. Hence it the client is asked on cross-examination of his communications to his lawyer and reveals the same there would be a waiver. Communications may refer to anticipated litigations or may not refer to any litigation at all. Wiler. be examined as to . Co. such as identity of the client is protected if the revelation of such information would necessarily reveal the privileged information. he thereby becomes an agent of such spouses so that the privilege is claimable against him. supra) But if the third person acquired knowledge of the communication by collusion and voluntary disclosure on the part of either of the spouses. This privilege does not apply when the doctor is presented as an expert witness and only hypothetical problems were presented to him.Any communication made by the client to him. Hayes. v. . There is also a waiver if the client does not object to the attorney’s testimony.Any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity. 24 (d) A minister or priest cannot. no one else including the attorney can invoke it. surgery or obstetrics cannot in a CIVIL CASE. .Privilege is owned by the client. (3) When the name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict. or with a view to. v. By doing so.Any advice or treatment given by him or . so that it is only he that can claim or waive it. It is waivable expressly or impliedly. Attorney-Client Privilege – Rule 30. Mutual Life Ins.Any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs . (Lim vs. 92) . CA. or . The party examined may request a report of the examination. and it is waivable by any act of such spouse which might be considered as an express or implied consent to the disclosure of the communication.) 5) Communications intended for transmission to third persons are not confidential. Sec. Sandiganbayan. If the client waives the privilege.

Such admission may be received in evidence not only against the party who made it or his successors-in-interest but also against third persons. as distinguished from admission. Note: Parental and filial testimony dies not prohibit voluntary testimony or compelled testimony against relatives by affinity or collateral relatives. 1979) Self-serving evidence An admission favorable to the party making it. which is to preserve harmonious relations between parent and child which could be ruptured through testifying in court. admission. 6. It does not extend to the direct ascendants of the adopter because the adoptive relation is between the adopter and the adopted only. nephews. Parental and Filial Privilege – Rule 130. 3) Aunts. Note: It is believed that adopted and adopter are covered by the parental and filial testimonial privilege rule but only insofar as the parent and child is concerned. is a declaration made at any time by a person.. Sec. 19 SCRA 865) b. other direct ascendants. Alegre. Flight is considered as circumstantial evidence of the guilt of the accused. Rule 129 Sec.Any act. 1986) The silence of an accused under custody or his failure to deny statements by another implicating him in a crime cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the commission of the crime. 84 Phil. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co.. 2) Brothers and sisters. There is an inconsistency between the ROC and Family Code with respect to this privilege. the lack of opportunity for crossexamination by the adverse party. Furthermore. since it is prejudicial to the interest of the accused. stating or acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the commission of a crime. (Lichauco v.B. 25 A person cannot be compelled to testify against his parents. Public Officer Privilege – Rule 30. 26 First is a JUDICIAL ADMISSION. Second is an EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION. (otherwise it is a self-serving statement) Example: Flight is considered a disserving act. criminal cases and even special proceedings. 26 . Extra-judicial Confession vs.hlp©2009 Page 18 8/24/201118 5. (Lichauco v. 4) Cousins of whatever degree. as to communications made to him in official confidence. 84 Phil. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement. (People vs. the admission is admissible only if it is against the interest of the admitter. but not if he advocates his interest. when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. (Viacrucis vs. ROC prevails since it took effect in 1989 and is made by the SC. Sec. Workmen's Compensation Commission. Admission A confession. 4 vs. which is conclusive upon the admitter whether in writing or oral. uncles. 24 (e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards. The reason for this opinion is the rationale behind the privilege. Who are not covered and may be compelled to testify: 1) Relatives by affinity. This applies to civil. is usually applied in criminal cases to . (National Development Co. on the other hand. Sec. and though substantive is procedural in character. declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Rule 130 Sec. BUT non-flight cannot be used as evidence to prove his innocence. because that will be considered as an act that is favorable to the interest of the accused. Admissions and Confessions Admissions – Rule 130. Under this rule. children or other direct descendants. Self-serving or favorable admissions made out of court not admissible: REASONS: 1) A man may be safely believed if he declares against his own interest. When self-serving or favorable admissions are admissible: 1) If made in open court 2) giving full opportunity to the adverse party 3) to exercise his right of crossexamination. v. The term. CA. nieces. 5) Other collateral relatives. that. perjury may result because the parent or the child may give false testimony to protect the other. N.. 342) a. 342) 2) It is excluded on the same ground as any hearsay evidence. While the Family Code took effect in 1989.

220) 3) Where the act or declaration was made in the course of an official investigation. may be given in evidence against him.. et al.R. Raquel. or it reveals a mistake. Tia Fong. (7) the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record. 10 Vt. Rule 130. which may be 2ndary evidence)] b) other than such act or declaration. 49 Phil. (People v. 28. 5) The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner. joint debtor. c) joint interest. (People v. (3) the accused admitted the facts after being apprised of the confession. as when the act or declaration was not specifically directed to the party who remained silent. v. 1998) 2) In actions based on fraud and deceit. 609) 4) When silence is upon advice of counsel. (Cruz. (4) if they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was confessed by 1 of the accused and the confession is used only as a corroborating evidence. Kozlowski. ROC arrangement and numbering supplied) Rule on admission by conspirator: . 1272) 2) When the party had no opportunity to comment on the act or declaration. except as hereinafter provided.S. (6) the confessant testified for his codefendant. 455). it provides insight into such person's motive or intent.The rights of a party may be prejudiced by the act.. G.hlp©2009 Page 19 8/24/201119 statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of the guilt of the accused or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is charged. v. or e) privity. 98 Phil. ROC arrangement and numbering supplied) Exceptions to the rule on admission by silence or instances where there is no admission by silence: 1) Where no good reason exists for the party to comment on the act or declaration (Veil v. 1996) Rule on admission by co-partner or agent: 1) The act or declaration of a partner or 2) agent within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency. (Sec.L. prom. No. when the act or declaration 1) is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true. (U. Rule 130. (Sec. or omission of another. Corrales. (Cruz. July 27. design or plan. a. 365) Admission by silence. Court of Appeals. d) conspiracy. it uncovers a scheme. 28 Phil. because it sheds light on the state of mind or knowledge of a person. (5) the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator. d. (80 A. (People v. Arcangel.R... declaration or omission of another when between the party making the admission and against whom it is offered there exists a relation of: a) partnership. 32. 29. declaration. An act or declaration made 1) in the presence and 2) within the hearing or 3) observation b. (Blanza v. b) agency.L. Rule 130. 3) may be given in evidence against such party 4) after the partnership or agency a) is shown by evidence [(testimonial or documentary. 1505) res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet or res inter alios acta Rule (First Part of Rule) Statements made or matters accomplished between two parties cannot prejudice a third party. Strong. Exceptions to the rule that extrajudicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused may not be utilized against the latter: (1) the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted the confession by not questioning its truthfulness. ROC) Exceptions to res inter alios acta: 1) When there is a rational similarity or resemblance between the conditions giving rise to he fact offered and the circumstances surrounding the issue or fact to be proved. and 2) when proper and possible for him to do so.R. or other person jointly interested with the party. et al. Anno. supra) 3) (Vicarious Admissions). (2) the accused persons voluntarily and independently executed identical confessions without collusion and without contradiction by the others present. Ranario. 126713. 115 A. of a party who does or says nothing c. (People vs. (Sec. 21 SCRA 4) The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act.

hlp©2009 Page 20 8/24/201120 1) The act or declaration of a conspirator 2) relating to the conspiracy and during its existence. and the like. Zea. Here. there is no impediment to its admission as evidence and it then becomes evidence of a high order. Pelonia.S. 1987). L-222518. (People v. Jan. it may be admitted against the other accused. L47147. 85 Phil. custom or usage. It represents the outward manifestation of a man. 130 SCRA 87. 30. 259 SCRA 138) General rule on admissibility of confession: A confession is admissible only against the accused who made it and not against his co-accused. while the former was alive.R. the act. 17. (People v. Macamay. the confession would be hearsay and res inter alios acta. (Molina v. openly told his acquaintances. July 3. Atienza. ROC. therefore. 970) 4) Where several accused. Second Part of Inter alios acta Rule (Similar Acts as Evidence) Rule 130. L-12687. plan. the confession is nullified by evidence of duress. because the statement was made after X held title to the land. identity. G. a very strong one. (Sec. Ramirez. that the land where his house stood had already been sold to Y. (People v. made extrajduicial confessions which are identical in essential details and corroborated by other evidence. .Confession is evidence of high order: 1) There is no evidence of a higher quality than a confession. but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge. (People v. 358) 2) If a confession be true and voluntary. Confessions – Rule 130. conducts and declarations adopted he confession as his own. (Sec. 34 . 47 Phil. such confession is admissible against the others.Declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged. Garcia. declaration. Art. 36 Phil. since it is supported by the presumption. 86 Phil.cannot be proven by documentary evidence. scheme. or of any offense necessarily included therein. while holding the title. supra. May 15. Rule 130. 88) Probative value of recantations: They are looked upon with disfavor as recantations are usually secured through intimidation or for a monetary consideration.Where one derives title to property from another. the deliberate act of the accused with a full comprehension of its significance. Sec. system. the sole heir of Y. 17. (People v.Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time. the same is admissible as an evidence of guilt of a high quality. the declaration by X is not admissible against Z. (People v. because the coaccused as a chance to cross-examine. 533) Exceptions: when a confession is admissible against co-accused: 1) When the confession of an accused implicating his co-accused is made judicially at a joint trial (U. 329. 576) 3) When the co-accused against whom an extrajudicial confession is offered had. Atienza. is evidence against the former Example: X. 133. v. 3) may be given in evidence against the coconspirator 4) after the conspiracy a) is shown by evidence (Circumstantial Evidence. may be given in evidence against him. People v. habit. Secs. 1953) 6) When the recitals in the extrajudicial confession of an accused is corroborated in its important details by other proofs in the record. especially if it be a serious crime. July 31. (People v. in relation to the property. People v. without collusion. Rule 130) *This refers to extrajudicial acts and declarations of a conspirator and not to his testimony as a witness in the trial. Ola. et al. Unless. 1962) . Villanueva. L-14624. 2) When the offer in evidence of an extrajudicial confession against a coaccused is not objected to. Atencio. 1987 Constitution . 1960) 5) The confession of a conspirator is admissible against his co-conspirator provided it was made during the existence of the conspiracy. 31 . People. Orencia. 1968) Rule on Admission by Privies – Rule 130. III. July 24. unless prompted by truth and conscience. by his acts. that no person of normal mind will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime. Sec. (People v.. 30. for as against the latter. Rule 115 (e). since conspirators do not normally reduce their agreement in writing) b) other than such act or declaration. Talledo. No. L-5875. Sec. or omission of the latter. 893) or when the extrajudicial statements implicating a co-accused are repeated in open court (People v. 54 Phil. father of Z.

(People v. (People vs.) They are what is commonly known as interlocking confession and constitute an exception to the general rule that extrajudicial confessions/admissions are admissible in evidence only against the declarants thereof. Niem. otherwise competent to testify as a witness who heard the confession is . Encipido. Extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion and are identical with each other in their material respects and confirmatory of the other are admissible as circumstantial evidence against coaccused implicated therein to show the probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime. (Ibid. if proved. These signatures are tantamount to an extrajudicial confession made without the assistance of counsel. whether feloniously caused or not. (People v. Sanchez. Madrid. 668) c. et al. 1996) The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against him and any person. 381). Marquez. 91 Phil. They are admissible as corroborative evidence against the other accused. (People v. 99 Phil. 77 Phil. et al. which may be proved even circumstantially. there must be satisfactory evidence of the fact of death and the identity of the victim that a crime has been committed which is what corpus delicti really means. if it is clear from other facts and circumstances presented that persons other than the declarants themselves participated in the commission of the crime charged and proved. 93 Phil. (Ibid. the corpus delicti is the fact of death (People v.. (People v. Wong Chuen Ming. The failure of the prosecution to produce the body of the victim does not imply the absence of corpus delicti for the term does not refer to the body of the murdered person. including a reenactment without admonition of the right to silence and to counsel. b. 89 Phil. Garcia. 1995) By affixing their signatures on the boxes. which is the violent death of a person. 1996) Any confession. (People v. In an affray. 381) Examples of corpus delicti: a. 44). would bring the crime charged within the scope of the amnesty proclamation. 7 SCRA 153) What is meant by corpus delicti ? a.. Nocum. (People v. 83. People v. 46) d. Art III – No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 83) b. 77 Phil. et al. Moro Ansang. (People v. 423). Salig. the fact that pistol shots were heard and a bystander was killed by one of the shots constitute evidence of corpus delicti. Compil. being composed of two elements: 1) certain results were produced. People. and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence. In murder or homicide. the fact of burning. 130 SCRA 209) . It refers to a particular crime and signifies that the specific offense had been actually committed by someone.hlp©2009 Page 21 8/24/201121 Extrajudicial confessions identical in material respects (also known as interlocking confessions) admissible against all declarants: 1) As circumstantial evidence. In robbery or theft. (People v. accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime charged. which means that the pleader admits the allegations against him. 17. 88 Phil. but disclaims liability therefor on account of intervening facts which.Sec. 146 SCRA 492) 2) As corroborative evidence. Yip Wai Ming. Marquez. People v. (People vs. and 2) someone is criminally responsible. It also means actual commission of the crime charged. (People v. 1. (People v. Garcia. Mones. 75 Phil. 1018) Conviction for murder proper even if victim’s body is not produced: In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an essential element of the offense. 77 Phil. People v.. 111. The operative act in determining whether the right against self-incrimination has been violated is when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who has been taken into custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminatory statements and not the signing by the suspect of his supposed extrajudicial confession. Sasota. 133 SCRA 69 citing Vera v. which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights. 58 Phil. (People vs. or the specific fact of loss or injury. 99 Phil. In arson. the fact of loss. Centeno.) The invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance.

A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge = those which are derived from his own perception. 1995) Compromises – Rule 130. ECED. L-9095. 1995) A plea of forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise. is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. De Guzman. Maqueda. Criminal Cases – An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt EXCEPT in cases involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised. 139 SCRA 586-587 citing People v. Such a constitutional safeguard cannot be satisfied unless the opportunity is given to the accused to test the credibility of any person. It would be to disregard one of the most valuable guarantees of a person accused if solely on the affidavits presented. Testimonial Knowledge – Rule 130. Luna. It has long been held that in cases of public crimes. 1996) An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be first filed before the offer can be received as evidence against the offeror. by affidavit or deposition would impute the commission of an offense to him. S. et al. Inc. his guilt could be predicated. but the court may direct hat the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. v. 2. 76 Phil. or the tenor of such statement. (People vs. May 25. 76 Phil. It is otherwise if the purpose is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made. (Marisfosque v.hlp©2009 Page 22 8/24/201122 competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it.. Reyes. (Sec. et al. Pagkaliwagan. 36 1 What can a witness testify to? . (People vs. 1971). Sec.. except as otherwise provided in these rules. 1965) The testimony of a witness on the confession made to him by the accused is not hearsay. Brioso. if intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence. Lavarez.Civil Cases – An offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability. Yparriguirre. Sec. (People v.. or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense. 23 SCRA 1301) Exceptions: when affidavits are given weight: 1) Where said affidavits are overwhelming. (Top-Weld Manufacturing. 1957. and is not admissible against the offeror.. the accused is permitted to show that the offer was not made under a consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment of for some other reason which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer was not in truth an admission of his guilt or an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would ordinarily ensue therefrom. 30 Phil. 153) NOTE: See concept of independent relevant statement. Gaddi. 138 SCRA 132) 2) Under the Rule on Summary Procedure for civil cases. who. The testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person. The hearsay evidence rule applies also to affidavits when the supposed affiant never identified the affidavit and there was no opportunity for the prosecution to cross- examine him/her. (People v. He is testifying to a fact which he knows of his personal knowledge (was testifying to the fact that the accused told him that he stabbed the victim) and not to the truth of the statement of the accused.A. Godoy. 7. (People vs. 27 1. (People vs. 2) Affidavits. People v. 354. v. (People vs. hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.. Rule 133. 3) When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties. (People vs.A plea of guilty later withdrawn. Aldecoa & Co. (People vs. . The Good Samaritan Rule: An offer to pay or the payment of medical. Cusi. . Santos. 1997) THE Hearsay Rule 1. uncontroverted by competent evidence and not inherently improbable. 1989) Examples of hearsay evidence: 1) The testimony of a witness as to what he has heard another person say about the facts in dispute. WArner Barnes & Co. 457) General rule: Affidavits without presenting affiant in court is mere hearsay: The constitutional right to confrontation precludes reliance on affidavits.

(People v. 3) Admission are not excluded by hearsay evidence. Carlos. Pagkaliwagan. (De Guia v. 76 Phil. People v. 374) 6) Newspaper Articles. The drinking buddy serves as a witness for the plaintiff. 40 Phil. (Donnelly v. Evidence is called hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part.S. court tells that defendant can cross examine on next scheduled hearing.Independent relevant statements are hearsay in character but not legal hearsay. 243) Principle of Independently Relevant Statements . 2001 Issue: Whether or not the use of the Angara diary to determine the state of mind of President Estrada violates the rule against the admission of hearsay evidence Held: 1) Angara diary is not an OUT-OFCOURT STATEMENT.” [THIS IS HEARSAY EVIDENCE] Now. 2) Angara diary is not covered by the hearsay rule. 2 Phil. . And though the diary is not Estrada’s hence nonbinding on him. APRIL 3. the credit of the assertor becomes the basis of inference. subject to the test of cross-examination. Illustration: A was drinking with his buddies. Second hand information (not derived from personal knowledge of witness) 2. 706) 5) A resolution of the municipal council of a certain municipality as to the character of an accused in a criminal case. Tanjuatco. supposing the neighbor filed a libel case against A. U. (U. v.(Double deck hearsay or Double hearsay) Theory of the hearsay rule: When a human utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted in it. (Pastor v. TWO CONCEPTS OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE: 1. [Now this time this is not hearsay. Testimony by a witness derived from his personal knowledge BUT the adverse party is not given opportunity to cross-examine Example (No. On the next scheduled hearing witness A no longer appears and could no longer be located. the fact that such statements have been made is relevant. and therefore the assertion can be received as evidence only when made on the witness stand. 228 U.S. since it is part of the pleadings in the case. . Prosecution calls as his witness one of the drinking buddies. 626) 4) A medical certificate to the extent of the injuries found by the doctor on the offended party's body. After direct examination. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary. Meralco. [The remedy here now is to ask that the testimony of witness A be stricken out since it now becomes hearsay] Rationale behind the non-admissibility of hearsay evidence: 1) A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own knowledge. because the FACT IN ISSUE is whether or not the utterances were made by a particular person. A told them that: “My neighbor is a thief”. The Angara diary contains direct statements of petitioner which can be categorized as admissions of a party. 1 Phil.Under this principle regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement. 2): Plaintiff presents witness A. The drinking buddy testifies in court saying: “The accused is a thief because I heard A says so.hlp©2009 Page 23 8/24/201123 ROC) 3) A letter offered in evidence to establish the facts in issue. Gaspar. 4) res inter alios acta rule.. 592.S. on the competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it.”. regardless of the truth or falsity of the statement] CASE: ESTRADA v. and this right is not available in respect of hearsay evidence since he declarant is not in court. hence they are not considered as exceptions to the hearsay rule. and the statements are admissible as evidence. 457) The right to cross-examine he adverse party's witnesses is essential in the administration of justice for it is the only means of testing the credibility of witnesses and their testimony. 47 Phil. DESIERTO. A testifies in court on matters personally known to him. and says: “I heard A said that the plaintiff is a thief. SC held that the doctrine of adoptive admission applies. and 2) To preserve the right of parties to crossexamine the original witness or person claiming to have knowledge of the transaction or occurrence. for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. Later on A’s neighbor was charged with theft.exception: admissions by a co-partner or agent. The hearsay rule does not apply.

71768. the evidence comes to the court couched in the witness' second hand perception and possibly.The declarant must be competent as a witness (What if declarant is proved to be a congenital liar? Still this exception may apply. The degree and seriousness of the wounds and the fact that death supervened thereafter constitute substantial evidence of the victim's consciousness of his impending death. No. 1987) CASE: The crime charged is rape with homicide.Declaration refers to cause and surrounding circumstances of the death of the declarant . prom. The husband was shot and wife was stabbed. Sec. Statements of a person which show his physical condition as illnesses and the like c. REASON: Unlike an oral or a written declaration. motive. homicide. G. an alter ego of the president.2 Res Gestae – Rule 130. 2. July 3. (People v. that is his mental condition. murder. No. rape with homicide] Victim need not state that he has lost all hope of recovery.there are two classes: (1) Statements which are the very facts in issue.R. a simple gesture of the hand unaccompanied by words.” [This is not a dying declaration. 42 .. Ola.hlp©2009 Page 24 8/24/201124 Executive Secretary Angara was the little president. The husband then died. because he is not disqualified from testifying in court if he were alive) . Bautista. 1997) Mere gesture of dying victim inconclusive: The gesture of a dying woman in pointing to a direction. (People v. Statements which may identify the date. 1987) Dying declaration has weight even if declarant did not die immediately after his declaration: The fact that the declarant died four (4) hours after his statement does not diminish the probative value of the dying declaration since it is not indispensable that the a declarant expires immediately thereafter. This is what makes hearsay evidence objectionable. July 28. he was authorized by the petitioner to act for him in the critical hours and days before he abandoned Malacanan. is too vague to be given such probative value in determining the culpability of the accused. the declarant would not expect to survive the injury from which he actually died. The statement is not a dying declaration because it pertains to the wife) . The wife died instantly. because the statement has nothing to do with the cause and circumstances surrounding the death. Tanaman. The second hand evidence is placed before the court without the benefit of cross-examination by the party against whom it is brought. Sec. No. 37 . 111149. The husband was brought to the hospital and made a statement that it was X who stab her wife. G. is open to various interpretations by the witness who testifies to its existence. imbued with his personal meanings and biases. (2) Statements which are circumstantial evidence. It is the belief of impending death and not the rapid succession of death that renders the dying declaration admissible. Statement of a person knowing his state of mind. knowledge. Exceptions 2.What are admissible as part of the res gestae: . robbery with homicide.R. ill will and other emotions b. nor of any other means of assessing the competence and credibility of the source. good or bad faith of the latter d. et al. But this may be admitted as part of res gestae] 2. otherwise. The second class includes: a. place and persons in questions e.The declarant actually died. [Criminal: Only those which involve death. It is sufficient that circumstances are such as to inevitably lead to the conclusion that at the time the declaration was made. belief. Thus. G. 5) Independently Relevant Statement.1 Dying Declaration – Rule 130. when asked for the identity of her assailant. (People v. that is the knowledge. intention. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness The Angara diary contains statements of the petitioner which reflect his state of mind and are circumstantial evidence of his intent to resign .Declaration was made under the consciousness of an impending death . The victim before death tells to the police investigator/doctor: “I was raped. Statements of a person which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another.Declaration may be received in any case wherein declarant’s death is the subject of inquiry (In one case.R. L-47147. September 5. belief. the declaration may be admitted as part of the res gestae and not as a dying declaration APPLICABILITY: Both Civil and Criminal. parricide. Indeed.

capable of different interpretations.Equivocal means ambiguous. The police noticed that the maid was hysterical and on the verge of collapse. The boy’s face was swollen and bruised and his body covered with dry blood. tied his hands.in so far as startling occurrence is concerned. The debt is not evidenced by a promissory note because plaintiff claims that defendant had orally borrowed money from him in the past and had always paid. The statements made by the maid fall within the res gestae rule] b) EQUIVOCAL/VERBAL ACTS: A witness testifies on the stand for the plaintiff in a collection case where the defendant denies having borrowed P10.” Further. tied her to a chair and robbed her. Y with the maid rushed to the police station and told the police what happened. Sec. I will pay one year after. or unable to testify. When X fled. And that he heart the plaintiff said that: “Here’s the money you are borrowing from me. CLOUD (265 SCRA 472) Concept of independently relevant statements and res gestae applied simultaneously. The witness testifies that one year ago he saw the plaintiff give money to the defendant.statements must be made after the injury has been inflicted upon the applicant. apparently the boy’s grandmother.hlp©2009 Page 25 8/24/201125 .Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof . The old woman. [N. [The testimony would be hearsay but as an exception to the hearsay rule. Her account of said statements of Alconyes are admissible under the doctrine of independently relevant statements. EXAMPLE: a) SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT: X barged into the house of Y. he said that he heard the defendant say: “Thank you. and these were shortly thereafter uttered by her with spontaneity. The prosecution presents the policeman to testify on what the maid told him. 2.anybody PEOPLE vs. This time he refuses to pay. 38 By whom made: a person deceased. with respect to the tenor and not the truth thereof.Statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue and giving it legal significance TWO CONCEPTS: A. During the trial the maid could no longer be located. if not gruesome. Ruling of SC: Insofar as the statements of Rufina Alconyes(old woman) are concerned. Death of declarant: DYING DECLARATIONdeclarant must die RES GESTAE. without prior opportunity to contrive the same. Spontaneous Statements B. cried and repeatedly screamed.3 Declaration Against Interest – Rule 130. RES GESTAE Time when statements made: DYING DECLARATION. X was charged with robbery with rape. they having been caused by and did result from the startling. Statements accompanying Equivocal Acts.no need for declarant to die Declarant: DYING DECLARATION.B. RES GESTAE. The old woman told the people inside the emergency room that the boy’s father had beaten him up. followed by an old woman who was shouting hysterically.” [Here the equivocal act of handing the money was given significance by the statement of the plaintiff] DYING DECLARATION vs. against the interest of the declarant Subject of declaration/act: the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own . The maid told the police that despite her pleas X still raped her.000 from the plaintiff. and stabbed him.must be the victim RES GESTAE. they are admissible as part of the res gestae. The report made thereof by Josephine Aguilar is not hearsay since she was actually there and personally heard the statements of Alconyes which she recounted in court. dying declaration may likewise be applied simultaneously with independently relevant statement] Josephine Aguilar was at the emergency room of a hospital to have some stitches removed from her daughter’s head when she saw a boy being carried by a man. “Pinatay siya ng sariling ama!”. Y could hear the maid crying: “Huwag! Maawa ka sa akin!”. X brought Y’s maid to a bedroom and raped her. the statements could be made prior or simultaneous with or after the startling occurrence. occurrence that she witnessed. since independent of the truth or falsity of the same they are relevant to the issue on the cause of the death of the victim.

[declarant MUST KNOW that it is against his interest] c. and the names of the relatives.4 Pedigree – Rule 130. [The testimony is not admissible to show the accused’s good moral character. 38. Rule 130. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. 40 Subject of exception: reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy. in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members. The defense presented a witness who heard Pedro say that he was the one who killed Jose. Sec. So the parish priest should tell the court what is the reputation of the Declaration against interest distinguished from admission: 1) An admission is not necessarily against the interest of the admitter WHILE the declaration must be against the declarant's own interest(penal. Pedro also died. respecting facts of public or general interest > 30 years old. engravings on rings. CA (1996) CASE: People v. in foreign country or physical/mental impairments] b. against the interest of the declarant. family genealogy. Sec. Holgado Jose was killed.e. Moore. Sec. may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family. Fuentes vs.Common reputation existing previous to the controversy.includes relationship.6 Common Reputation – Rule 130. either by consanguinity or affinity.What are admissible? . 41 . and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. -Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts. Pedigree . 3) An admission may be received in evidence only against the admitter and those identified with him in legal interest WHILE the declaration may be received even against third persons. 39 By whom made: person deceased. Example: A parish priest of the community where the accused belongs is presented as witness. REQUISITES: a. may be received as evidence of pedigree.5 Family Tradition – Rule 130. financial) 2) An admission may be received even if the admitter is alive WHILE the declarant must be dead or is unable to testify. marriage. death. SC held that Pedro’s declaration is a declaration against interest. Unfortunately. may be given in evidence. (Sec. proprietary. birth. 2. 2. (Smith v. 142 N. Moral character for purposes of evidence can be demonstrated ONLY by evidence of REPUTATION]. And the parish priest testifies that the accused goes to mass everyday and receives holy communion. or respecting marriage or moral character. the dates when and the places where these fast occurred. mentally incapacitated or physically incompetent. . Mere absence from the jurisdiction does not make him ipso facto unavailable. ROC) accused did not commit the crime charged. that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true Against whom received: such may be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons.Monuments and inscriptions in public places may be received as evidence of common reputation Note: When it comes to presentation of evidence concerning the good or bad moral character.hlp©2009 Page 26 8/24/201126 interest. or unable to testify Subject of declaration/act: pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage When admissible: occurred before the controversy. 2. or 2) unable to testify [i. family portraits and the like. Pedro admitted that he was the one who killed Jose. It is therefore admissible to show that the . The declaration is made by 1) a person deceased. The prosecutor filed an information charging Juan with homicide of Jose. if the fact asserted in the declaration 1) was at the time it was made 2) so far contrary to declarant's own interest.C. 3) that a reasonable man in his position a) would not have made the declaration b) unless he believed it to be true. So if character evidence is allowed a litigant cannot present proof that he is of good moral character. the only evidence admissible is evidence of COMMON REPUTATION. 277) Inability to testify = either dead.

When admissible: may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him. “Unable to testify” refers to an inability proceeding from a grave cause almost amounting to death as when the witness is old and has lost the power of speech. register. the presumption is that he is really a good person. CA. equivalent to the actual . habit. The report submitted by a police officer in the performance of his duties on the basis of his own personal observation of the facts reported. (Caltex vs. if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. (People vs. report. Hearsay rule exception: A memorandum. When given: in a former case or proceeding. but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge. made by electronic. 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. record or data compilation of acts. Treatment of such evidence: prima facie evidence. Sec. Sec. Sec. 34-35 . periodical.Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time. conditions. or unable to testify. optical or similar means. science. 45 Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list. who was in a position to know the facts therein stated. 2. periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history. Africa. may properly be constituted as an exception.8 Official Records – Rule 130. opinions. 2. Secs. 47 By whom made: a witness deceased or unable to testify. record. 1993) 2.9 Commercial Lists – Rule 130. plan. Principle of NEGATIVE REPUTE If in a community nothing good or bad is heard about a particular person.10 Learned Treatises – Rule 130. 1967) Conduct and Character as Evidence Conduct – Rule 130. 42. judicial or administrative. or near the time of transactions to which they refer. system. all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses. This presumption may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or circumstances of the preparation. Sec. identity.7 Entries in the Course of Business – Rule 130. 46 A published treatise.hlp©2009 Page 27 8/24/201127 accused in the community. optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof. Cabuang. who was in a position to know the facts therein stated. Sec. and the like. or diagnoses. or data compilation by electronic. if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. or near the time of transactions to which they refer By whom made: by a person deceased. report. scheme. custom or usage. law. transmission or storage thereof. periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. Section 1. that the writer of the statement in the treatise. Rule 8. and such was the regular practice to make the memorandum. By whom made: by a person deceased.11 Prior Testimony – Rule 130. or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein.An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is. Rule 8. Section 2. 44 When made: Entries made at. 2. Treatment of such evidence: prima facie evidence. 1966) Entries in a police blotter are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. 2. involving the same parties and subject matter. if rejected without valid cause. and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity. because that flows from the established principle in substantive law that everyone is acting in good faith. REE When made: Entries made at. Rule 8. (Tan vs. or unable to testify. events.

. or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime. It was ruled by the Supreme Court that evidence aliunde is not allowed to prove that a ballot is marked. may be received in evidence regarding — (a) The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge. While evidence of another crime is. skill. Handwriting experts. this can be done by the COMELEC itself. ((Punzalan v. because under Rule 133 the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is demonstrated by proof beyond reasonable doubt Civil Cases: The usual principle is that whoever makes an affirmative allegation has the burden of proof Infringement cases: The burden of proof to substantiate a charge of infringement is with the plaintiff. it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant. Irang.(Punzalan v. 48-50 General Rule: The opinion of a witness is not admissible (R130. (People vs. et al. Opinion Rule – Rule 130. Adoviso. there is created a prima facie presumption of its correctness and validity. Secs. In criminal cases – . et al. as a rule.Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. No.hlp©2009 Page 28 8/24/201128 production and tender instrument. if they find that it is inconsistent with the facts in the case or otherwise unreasonable. 1999) Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in the sense that they must be accepted as true on the subject of their testimony. 14 General Rule: Character evidence is not admissible. not admissible in a prosecution for robbery. 1949) Polygraph test has not as yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. Criminal Cases: The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Character – Rule 130. ß50) There is no precise requirement as to the mode in which skill or experience shall have been acquired. In civil cases – . 126669) VI.Prosecution = may not prove his bad moral character unless in rebuttal. the courts may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimony and may reject it. vs. behavior.. . and the same is in due form. are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting. an inspection of the ballot itself being sufficient. No. G. 51. (b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity. or property. experience or training which he shown to possess (R130. Burden of Proof – Rule 131. Commission on Elections. (People vs. and (c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. (d) The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion.R. Sec. (R130. condition or appearance of a person. Sec. as when it tends to identify defendant as the perpetrator and tends to show is presence at the scene of the crime or in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged.Accused = may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. of the money. but are generally regarded as purely advisory. (People vs. 2.R. 126669) Testimony of handwriting expert not indispensable to COMELEC. Soliman. Expert witness: opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge. ß49) 2.Offended Party = his/her good or bad moral character may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. Merced. 1937) Good or bad moral character of the victim is not necessary in a crime of murder where the killing is committed through treachery or premeditation. 1 Burden of proof (Risk of non-persuasion): duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount required by law. Scientific study and training are not always essential to the competency of a witness as an expert. Ordinary witness: The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given. 1957) V. Sec. Rule 132.Witness = Evidence of his/her good character is not admissible until such character has been impeached. ß48) Except: 1. Commission on Elections. (Dilag Co. while probably useful. .Burden of Proof and Presumptions 1. But where he plaintiff introduces the patent in evidence. The decision of the Commissioner of Patent (now the Director of . . [because it is purely circumstantial] exceptions1. Knowledge acquired by doing is no less valuable than that acquired by study. G.

in granting the patent is presumed to be correct. as neither party was able to make out a case. In a criminal/civil case.. et al. [ At the start.] Can the accused in a criminal/civil case before presenting his own evidence ascertain conditionally or provisionally whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is enough to convict him? Yes. 117) Two separate burdens in Burden of Proof: 1. When defendant does not file an answer. prom. G. hence this must be proven. Court of Appeals. EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE or no evidence is presented CRIMINAL CASE: Accused is acquitted CIVIL CASE: a. If defendant presents enough evidence to prove his negative defense then the burden of evidence is shifted again to the plaintiff on rebuttal evidence. When defendant files an answer and sets up purely negative defenses and no evidence is presented by both sides.Defendant wins because plaintiff has not carried his burden c. And it is the defendant’s burden to prove his affirmative defense. et al. et al. NLRC. G. (Rivera v. BURDEN OF PROOF vs. PRINCIPLE OF NEGATIVING AVERMENT A negative averment do not have to be proven UNLESS the negative averment is an essential part of the cause of action or defense. he should go to trial and present evidence to show that he has a cause of action. while Burden of Evidence is TRANSFERRED from one litigant to another depending on the progress of trial. No. Burden of persuasion. to create or meet a prima facie case. (Maguan v. Court of Appeals. by means of evidence.Plaintiff wins b. 115625. 1998) Therefore. If he has introduced enough proof that he has a cause of action. No.. the information will contain an averment that the accused does not have a license to possess the firearm[negative averment]. prom. the negative averment is an essential part of the commission of the crime. When defendant files an answer and sets up affirmative defenses and no evidence is presented by both sidesPlaintiff wins Example: The defendant filed an answer: “I admit that I borrowed money from the plaintiff. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE Burden of Proof NEVER SHIFTS.. v. 116960. denying the existence of the loan.R.] BURDEN OF EVIDENCE.as distinct from the general burden of proofshifts to the creditor who is then under the duty of producing evidence to show nonpayment.hlp©2009 Page 29 8/24/201129 the Intellectual Property Office). the burden of going forward with the evidence . the burden of going forward is the burden of producing evidence. Example: In an information for illegal possession of firearms. the plaintiff has the burden of proof and also burden of evidence.” [If no evidence is presented by both sides then plaintiff wins because the defendant admitted the existence of loan. the party having the burden of proof fails upon that issue. Doctrine of equipoise or Equiponderance Rule Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. Burden of going forward. 146 SCRA 116. Where the debtor introduces evidence of payment.that of producing evidence 2.the duty resting upon a party. the accused(defendant/plaintiff) can easily determine the sentiment of the court concerning the quantum of evidence presented by the prosecution(defendant/plaintiff) by simply filing a demurrer to evidence with leave of court. January 23. April 2.. et al. The burden of going forward with the evidence (burden of evidence) then shifts to the defendant to overcome by competent evidence this legal presumption. 1996) In short. (Jimenez. the burden of evidence will now be shifted to the defendant. but the plaintiff has no reason to run after me because I have paid that account long time ago.R. Illustration: Plaintiff files a complaint for recovery of a defaulted loan.burden of persuading the trier of fact that the burdened party is entitled to prevail Illustration of going forward with the evidence: For example after the existence of a debt has been proven by the creditor the burden of proving payment devolves upon the debtor. neither side could establish its cause of action and prevail with . Defendant files an answer with a negative defense. * In this case.

Note: also a conclusive presumption under the Rule 39.Prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later ones is produced. he cannot in any litigation arising out of such declaration. 3-e. (People v. Conclusive. . d. Whenever a party by his own declaration. Presumption of regularity of private transactions . Secs. (People v.not permitted to be overcome by any proof to the contrary 2. The suppression is not in the exercise of a privilege. NOTES: Instances where adverse presumption from suppression of evidence does not apply: a.Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced ELEMENTS: a. Court of Appeals.hlp©2009 Page 30 8/24/201130 the evidence it had. Bohol v. CLASSIFICATIONS 1. The suppression is wilful. (Sec.2 Disputable CLASSIFICATIONS: 1.Thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter. the courts can only leave them as they are. Rule 131. has led another – 1 to believe a particular thing to be true AND 2 to act upon such belief.1. Presumption of innocence (Presumption of good faith) 2. as a consequence thereof. 2-4 Presumption. d. c. .a deduction which the law expressly directs to be made from particular facts -Must be made whenever the facts appear which furnish the basis for the inference -Reduced to fixed rules and form part of the system of jurisprudence 2. 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. act. (Estoppel) 2.1. The suppressed evidence is merely corroborative or cumulative.A person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act. Presumption of regularity of official and judicial acts 3. Ducay. If the evidence is at the disposal of both parties. person acting in public office was regularly . . PRESUMPTION JURIS OR OF LAW.Person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money or the delivery of anything has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly.1. c. supra citing Municipality of Candijay. 251 SCRA 530) 2.an inference as to the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are permitted to draw from the proof of other facts. 225 SCRA 1) b. omission. and.2.Unlawful act is done with an unlawful intent. ROC) continue b.Person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act. Presumptions – Rule 131.Person is innocent of a crime or wrong. The evidence is at the disposal only of the suppressing party. (Rivera. 220 SCRA 624) .law permits to be overcome or contradicted 2. The evidence suppressed is not merely corroborative. . PRESUMPTION HOMINIS OR OF FACTa deduction which reason draws from facts proved without an express direction from the law to that effect -Discretionary on the court -Derived from circumstances of a particular case through common experience of mankind CLASSIFICATIONS OF PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW 1. that things which a person possesses or exercises acts of ownership over. .Money paid by one to another was due to the latter. . They are thus no better off than before they proceeded to litigate. . Disputable. The suppression is an exercise of a privilege. {judgment in rem or in personam}) There is 2. . Navaja. The suppression was not willful.Obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid.Person takes ordinary care of his concerns. which is a public policy principle of res judicata (a judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing or upon the political or legal condition of a person. .1 Conclusive 2. otherwise. are owned by him. act or omission be permitted to falsify it.

even though it is born within the 300 days after the termination of the former marriage. and has been missing for 4 years. it being not known whether or not he is alive. . purporting to be printed or published by public authority. was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction. . .Persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of co-partnership. . = Spouse. . if disappeared after age of 75.A man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published.A printed or published book.The law has been obeyed.negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration.Things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life. = Member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities. .Private transactions have been fair and regular. . .If the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage. . . . property or industry. Before marrying again.ordinary course of business has been followed. absence of 5 years. or an aircraft with is missing. without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. 2 years in case of disappearance. when 2 persons perish in the same calamity.there was a sufficient consideration for a contract.All the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it.In cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of money.Except for purposes of succession. .A writing is truly dated. even though it be born within the 300 days after the termination of the former marriage.A thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the nature .A trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest. . contains correct reports of such cases. work or industry.A child born before 180 days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage.Letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail. . all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before arbitrators and passed upon by them. = The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs: = Person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage. the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. = Person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four years. = For the purpose of opening his succession: an absence of 10 years. .Absentee of 7 years. of a married person absent for 4 consecutive years. where there is a danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided. has been obtained by their joint efforts. these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: .Property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage.hlp©2009 Page 31 8/24/201131 appointed or elected to it. may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has wellfounded belief that the absent spouse is already death. . was so printed or published.A printed or published book. .Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact. . . . . . is considered dead for all purposes except for succession.An indorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated. who has not been heard of for 4 years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft.Official duty has been regularly performed. whether in the Philippines or elsewhere.A child born after 180 days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage. . and it . . such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal.A court or judge acting as such.

if the sex be the same. Sec. Examination of Witnesses 1. = One <15. but it is only the judge who can ask questions. as to which of them died first. Use Immunity. Sec. According to some decisions that could be treated as a compelled testimony given under duress and therefore could not be used against the witness. 1 open court under oath or affirmation . . EXCEPTIONS TO RULE AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION 1. the latter is deemed to have survived. improper. = Both >15. whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other.That if there is a doubt. He is not immunized from prosecution. (5a) The presumption that evidence not produced or willfully suppressed is adverse to the party. Rights of a witness: 2.1 To be protected from irrelevant. Later on the answer turns out to be incriminatory and later on the witness was indicted for the commission of this offense. according to the following rules: = Both < 15: older survived. or insulting questions. cross. 2. However. the older. the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes. in the absence of proof. 1976) VII. <60 and the sex be different.preliminary examination of witnesses for the purpose of establishing whether or not a witness really is qualified as such. and the other between those ages. 2. other >60: <15 survived. will not apply if the evidence is at the disposal of both the defense and the prosecution and if the evidence is merely conclusive. Presentation of Evidence Note: The Rules apply to Summary Procedure but in a modified form. but the statements given by the witness cannot be used against him. although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. How done – Rule 132. and from harsh or insulting demeanor. except a child witness. can his testimony in court be given in evidence against him in the form of an admission? NO. = One < 15 or >. unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed.There is absolute immunity.Mode of answering General Rule: oral Exception: o Witness is incapacitated to speak or o Question calls for a different mode of answer 2. or 2. and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred. the affidavits of the witnesses take the place of the direct examination. Rights and Obligations – Rule 132. (in civil cases) will be reduced into writing in the form of affidavit. Hence. In criminal cases under Summary Procedure. (Likewise done in examination of a child witness.5 Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation. as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other.the witness will still be indicted for the commission of an offense. there is no direct. shall prove the same. (People vs.2 Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require. 2. 2. plaintiff and defendant can write their questions and give it to the judge) Note: Ordinary witnesses are not allowed to be examined in a narrative form. they shall be considered to have died at the same time. both to prosecution and . re-cross or re-direct examination. the court directs the witness to give an answer and the witness obeys the order of the court. Padiernos. because the witnsess has initially objected and he gave the answer only in compliance with an order of the court. 3 Obligation of a witness: answer questions.3 Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue. Case: Supposing a witness refused to answer because he feels the question is incriminatory. = Both > 60: younger survived. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. since in Summary Procedure the testimonies of the witnesses. There is cross examination VOIR DIRE. Affiant is not allowed in Summary Procedure to embody hearsay testimony. Transactional Immunity.hlp©2009 Page 32 8/24/201132 is not shown who died first. the male is deemed to have survived. A.4 Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law.

6. Leading and Misleading Questions – Rule 132. upon the conclusion of the redirect examination. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer.where a witness is called to testify to a particular fact.e. 7 . When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant.hlp©2009 Page 33 8/24/201133 use of the statements given by the witness. and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. and when witness is hostile or adverse party witness) 3. 3. Sec. the examination not being confined to the matters inquired about in the direct examination. • When the answer is derived from a leading question the evidence has no probative value at all even if there is no objection to a leading question. or is of feeble mind.After the examination of a witness has been concluded by both sides has been concluded.3 Re-direct Examination – Rule 132. Order in the Examination – Rule 132. the cross-examination was conducted in so inept a manner as to result in a virtual absence thereof. 3. substantial ground (i. particularly identified material points were not covered in the crossexamination. or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party. the court in its discretion may allow questions on matters not dealt with during the crossexamination. 2. Sec.Matters covered: witness may be crossexamined by the adverse party as to – = Any matters stated in the direct examination.2 Cross-Examination – Rule 132.When conducted: after the crossexamination of the witness has been concluded . (People vs. which the examining party desires. American Rule.Examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. IAC (1987) TWO RULES ON LIMITS OF CROSS EXAMINATION 1. 4 3. 5 . Sec. or a child of tender years. particularly described vital documents were not presented to the witness. Sec. (applies when witness is the accused in a criminal case. or a deaf-mute. or  his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. English Rule. 9 . 2 Not allowed. or the reverse. Rivera. Of an unwilling or hostile witness. the witness cannot be recalled without leave of court. 6 . he becomes a witness for all purposes and may be fully cross-examined upon all matters material to the issue. with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias. or o A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his  adverse interest. Sec. Misleading questions 1 Those that assume as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness.  unjustified reluctance to testify. and = To elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. . Recalling Witnesses – Rule 132. 3. 3. director.  General Rule: Not allowed  Exceptions: 1. 10 Leading questions  Questions that suggest to the witness the answer. are leading questions. There must be a satisfactory showing of some concrete. 4. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion as the interests of justice may require. On cross examination.1 Direct Examination – Rule 132. 8 . On preliminary matters.restricts crossexamination to facts and circumstances which are connected with the matters that have been stated in the direct examination of the witness. Sec. 4.When conducted: upon termination of direct examination . 2. Sec.4 Re-cross Examination – Rule 132.Why conducted: to explain or supplement his answers given during the crossexamination. Implied waiver of cross-examination – The party was given the opportunity Dela Paz vs. On re-direct-examination. 1991) 5. or contrary to that which he has previously stated.Adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination. or connected therewith.

909) There is no prohibition against the judge conducting the examination of the witness. 13 .Evidence of particular wrongful acts is not allowed except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness. Sec. (People v. Impeachment of Own Witness – Rule 132.1. 286) However. et al. GR 51513. or to test their credibility. this power must be exercised by the court sparingly and judiciously. 133 SCRA 51) Role of attorney during presentation of evidence: An attorney has a dual role to perform relative to proving the truth respecting a matter of fact. . He must ensure that all evidence supporting the material allegations. Impeachment of Adverse Party’s Witness – Rule 132. 6. 6. the judge cannot curtail counsel's right to interrogate witnesses. (People v. His other role is to block the admission of evidence supporting his opponents' material allegations whether raised in the pleadings or not.General Rule: The party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach the latter’s credibility. 12 . (People v. the incomplete testimony is rendered incompetent and should be stricken from the record. He may also be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party. the court may in its sound discretion stop the introduction of such further evidence. by evidence that his general reputation for truth. He must actively participate therein by directing counsel to the facts in dispute. (People v. 56 O. honesty or integrity is bad. 7042. 83 Phil. Ferrer. but such cross-examination must only be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief. . Yatco. 1984) Scope of judge’s participation at trial: A judge who presides at a trial is not a mere referee. Impeachment of Witnesses 6. or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony. to obtain clarification. 112). that he has been convicted of an offense. and by showing an interest in a fast a fair trial. (Clarin v. Reyes.2. (People v Moreno.G.hlp©2009 Page 34 8/24/201134 DOCTRINE OF INCOMPLETE TESTIMONY: When cross examination cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered the witness. by asking clarifying questions.. . or  his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. In order to perform this dual role the attorney should ensure that the evidence he offers are admissible in accordance with the Rules of Court and those of his opponent are properly objected to for being inadmissible 6. The counsel may object to the questions propounded by the judge. 1960) He can interrogate witnesses to elicit the truth. Power of court to stop further evidence: 1) The court may stop 2) the introduction of further testimony 3) upon any particular point 4) when the evidence upon it is already so full 5) that more witnesses to the same point 6) cannot be reasonably expected 7) to be additionally persuasive. Nov. Bedia.G. = A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his  adverse interest.How done: by contradictory evidence. Sec. or the record of the judgment. Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statements – Rule 132. except by evidence of bad character. 14. When the evidence already presented on one point is sufficient and the party merely seeks to present cumulative evidence which cannot produce additional persuasive effect or that he is not sure of what the other witnesses would testify. 83 Phil.Exception: The witness is an unwilling or hostile witness. Except: where the prosecution witness was extensively crossexamined on the material points and thereafter failed to appear and cannot be produced despite a warrant for his arrest. GOrospe. But this power should be exercised with caution. May 15. Of course.The impeachment may be made by the party presenting the hostile or unwilling witness in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party. 44 O. whether raised in the pleadings or not are admitted by the court. Sec.  unjustified reluctance to testify.3. 11 .

6(b)) Competency exam A.hlp©2009 Page 35 8/24/201135 . The age of the child by itself is not a . cross examine the witness upon it. When conducted. and when a detached act. To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child. and if so.The whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other. He must first proved that there was a writing duly executed and that the original has been lost or destroyed. Sec. Competency of a Child Witness: Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. exploitation.A witness may testify from such writing or record. or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court. Note: It is the memorandum that will serve as evidence (documentary evidence) What is the consequence of giving in evidence a part of an act. — Unless otherwise provided. It shall apply in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal proceedings involving child witnesses. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness Applicability of the Rule. Refreshing Recollection of Witnesses – Rule 132. Section 17) [RULE OF COMPLETENESS] . The judge may also have the witnesses separated and prevented from conversing with each other until all have been examined.Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony: the statements must be related to him. when it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive. remember. Definition (ß4(a)) Any person who at the time of giving testimony is < 18 years. writing or record is given in evidence.The judge may exclude from the court any witness not at the time under examination. so that he may not hear the testimony of other witnesses. the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his competence. conversation. who may. 16 8. neglect. (as in the case in revival of present memory) though he retain no recollection of the particular facts. be allowed to explain them. Note: The memorandum is not evidence. if the statements be in writing they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them (laying the predicate). . 8.A party seeking a competency examination must present proof of necessity of competency examination. any other act. if he is able to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made. writing or record? (Rule 132. 7. but such evidence must be received with caution. declaration.refers to a situation where an evidence which is otherwise incompetent will be introduced in evidence because it falls under the exceptions to that rule on exclusion. writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present. accused of a crime.2 Past Recollection Recorded . conversation.A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory respecting a fact. or immediately thereafter. and witnesses to crime. by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred. (ßß6. and he must be asked whether he made such statements.BUT in such case the writing or record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party. or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and knew that the same was correctly written or recorded. this Rule shall govern the examination of child witnesses who are victims of crime. conversation. II.1 Revival of Present Memory . if he chooses. Example: If a party desires to introduce secondary or substitutionary evidence he must first lay the foundation or lay the basis. declaration. Laying the foundation or laying the basis. Sec. distinguish truth from falsehood.Motu proprio or on motion of a party. Exclusion and Separation of Witnesses – Rule 132. and may read it in evidence. 14 . In child abuse cases: a child includes one over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself from abuse. communicate. (ß6) . declaration. (ß1) Child witness I. it is still the testimony 8. cruelty.

How conducted – General Rule: open court. or the question calls for a different mode of answer.The court may also.In making its order. or timidity.The defendant. (ß25) Who may apply for an order that testimony of the child be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by live-link television: 1 prosecutor. 2 counsel or the 3 guardian ad litem Period for application: The person seeking such an order shall apply at least five (5) days before the trial date. except court personnel and the counsel of the parties. unless the court determines that competence can be fully evaluated in his absence. hinder the ascertainment of truth. (ß7) B. Hearing on the application: III.By whom conducted: by the judge. (ß6(d)) .The judge and necessary court personnel. unless the court finds on the record that the need for such an order was not reasonably foreseeable. exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during trial is of such character as to be offensive to decency or public morals. his desires. and the interests of his parents or legal guardian. (ß6(c))   How conducted. however. communicate. (ß6(e)) . the nature of the crime. in his discretion. (ß6(f)) result in his inability to effectively communicate due to embarrassment. (ß6(a)) B. Oath: Before testifying.Questions asked: appropriate to the age and developmental level of the child. move the court to allow him to testify in the manner provided in this Rule (ß8): i. a child shall take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. Live-link television testimony in criminal cases where the child is a victim or a witness. distinguish between truth and falsehood. (ß23) b) The court may order that persons attending the trial shall not enter or leave the courtroom during the testimony of the child. . (ß8) Exception/s: a) Exclusion of the public – . shall not be related to the issues at trial. and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully. and shall focus on the ability of the child to remember.Support person/s for the child. on motion of the accused. counsel for the parties. motu proprio. the answers of the witness shall be given orally. fear. . his relationship to the accused and to persons attending the trial. .hlp©2009 Page 36 8/24/201136 sufficient basis for a competency examination. Examination 1. or . Testifying A. . exclude the public from trial.The court has the duty of continuously assessing the competence of the child throughout his testimony. ask the child.The guardian ad litem. can submit questions to the judge that he may. (ß24) c) Motion by party who presents a child witness or the guardian ad litem of such child witness may.The court may. . the nature of his testimony regarding the crime. Who are allowed to attend. unless the witness is incapacitated to speak.Why made:  To protect the right to privacy of the child or  If the court determines on the record that requiring the child to testify in open court would cause psychological harm to him.The counsel for the parties. however. . the court shall consider the developmental level of the child. and .

(5)†Any threats against the child. (10)†Testimony of expert or lay witnesses. prosecutor. the need for taking the testimony of the child through live-link television. prosecutor. Order denying/granting use of live-link TV: The court shall issue an order granting or denying the use of live-link television and stating the reasons therefor. (8)†His reaction prior to trial when the topic of testifying was discussed with him by parents or professionals. (9)†Specific symptoms of stress exhibited by the child in the days prior to testifying. and counsel for the parties. o one or both of his support persons. How done: where testimony is taken: in a room separate from the courtroom who are present: o guardian ad litem. The trauma must be of a kind which would impair the completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child. The judge may question the child in chambers. in the presence of the support person. or psychological injury experienced by him. Factors considered by the court in granting/denying application: (1)†The age and level of development of the child. (3)†Any physical. with notice to the parties. (11)†The custodial situation of the child and the attitude of the members of his family regarding the events about which he will testify. . emotional. (7)†His reaction to any prior encounters with the accused in court or elsewhere. . including the accused. The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if there is a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of the accused. whose presence or conduct causes fear to the child. The questions of the judge shall not be related to the issues at trial but to the feelings of the child about testifying in the courtroom. (4)†The nature of the alleged abuse. and o other persons whose presence are determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child. including any mental or physical disability. o persons necessary to operate the closedcircuit television equipment. his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. such as court atmosphere and formalities of court procedure.hlp©2009 Page 37 8/24/201137 The court may motu proprio hear and determine. (2)†His physical and mental health. The judge may exclude any person. and (12)†Other relevant factors. if any. (6)†His relationship with the accused or adverse party. o a court officer appointed by the court.The judge. or in some comfortable place other than the courtroom. guardian ad litem. o the facilitator o and interpreter.

the court may allow the child to enter the courtroom for the limited purpose of identifying the accused. Guardian ad litem. Videotaped deposition. Prosecutor. and other devices to shield child from accused. also required) Order granting application: The court shall issue an order stating the reasons and o o o o . the courtroom shall be arranged to enable the accused to view the child. victim. iii. The court may set other conditions and limitations on the taking of the testimony that it finds just and appropriate.hlp©2009 Page 38 8/24/201138 - - - accused. (ß27) Who may apply for an order that a deposition be taken of the testimony of the child and that it be recorded and preserved on videotape? 1 prosecutor. or other similar devices which shall be made part of the court record and shall be subject to a protective order as provided in section 31(b). one-way mirrors. In case of exclusion of the accused. The testimony of the child shall be transmitted by live-link television into the courtroom for viewing and hearing by the judge. 2 counsel. the court shall order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television in ii. defense counsel. provided that. also required) When allowed:†If the court finds that the child will not be able to testify in open court at trial. describing the approved courtroom arrangement If the court grants an application to shield the child from the accused while testifying in the courtroom. and counsel for the parties shall be in the courtroom. Screens. prosecutor. Deposition-taking: Who are present o Judge – who shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a child. or 3 guardian ad litem (consultation with prosecutor or counsel as in application for use of livelink TV. accused. (ß26) Who may apply for an order that the chair of the child or that a screen or other device be placed in the courtroom in such a manner that the child cannot see the accused while testifying: 1 prosecutor or 2 guardian ad litem (consultation with prosecutor or counsel as in application for use of live-link TV. digital disc. taking into consideration the best interests of the child. Accused. or the court may allow the child to identify the accused by observing the image of the latter on a television monitor. and the public unless excluded. if the order of the court is based on evidence that the child is unable to testify in the physical presence of the accused. counsel for the parties. the court may direct the latter to be excluded from the room in which the deposition is conducted. it shall issue an order that the deposition of the child be taken and preserved by videotape. If it is necessary for the child to identify the accused at trial. The testimony of the child shall be preserved on videotape.

After the original videotaping but before or during trial. especially the right to counsel and to confront and cross-examine the child. . at the time of trial. When conducted: The court may order that the testimony of the child should be taken during a time of day when the child is well-rested. he shall not be disqualified and may serve as the interpreter of the child. the court finds that the child is unable to testify for a reason stated in section 25(f) of this Rule. Support person/s. the court may admit into evidence the videotaped deposition of the child in lieu of his testimony at the trial. rights of the accused o Objections to deposition testimony or evidence. o The videotaped deposition shall be preserved and stenographically recorded. it is not necessary that the child be able to view an image of the accused. and the grounds for the objection shall be stated and shall be ruled upon at the time of the taking of the deposition. Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. If the accused is excluded from the deposition. and other relevant factors.hlp©2009 Page 39 8/24/201139 accordance with section 25 of this Rule. or parts thereof. shall testify  An interpreter shall o o o †Persons necessary to operate the videotape equipment. Interpreter for child (ß9) How appointed: the court motu proprio or upon motion When appointed:†When a child does not understand the English or Filipino language or is unable to communicate in said languages due to his developmental level. however. The videotaped deposition and stenographic notes shall be subject to a protective order as provided in section 31(b). who is also a witness. if any. shall not be violated during the deposition. or is unavailable for any reason described in section 4(c). disability. The court may order an additional videotaped deposition to receive the newly discovered evidence. The court shall issue an order stating the reasons therefor. The rights of the accused during trial. Court and stenographer. The court may set other conditions on the taking of the deposition that it finds just and appropriate. The videotape and the stenographic notes shall be transmitted to the clerk of the court where the case is pending for safekeeping and shall be made a part of the record. the constitutional rights of the accused. shyness. taking into consideration the best interests of the child. the facilitator and interpreter. The interpreter. or other similar reason Who may be interpreter? †If a witness or member of the family of the child is the only person who can serve as an interpreter for the child. fear. Objections to testimony or evidence. (ß14) Provisions for ease of child in testifying/accommodations for a child a. o Other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child. If. any party may file any motion for additional videotaping on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Facilitator to pose questions to child (ß10) How appointed: The court motu proprio or upon motion. movement and deportment of all persons in the courtroom including the parties. The child may be allowed to testify from a place other than the witness chair. and court personnel. in its discretion. witnesses. The questions shall either be in the words used by counsel or. . Who may be a facilitator: The facilitator may be a child psychologist. psychiatrist. judge. (3)†The court may allow the support person to hold the hand of the child or take other appropriate steps to provide emotional support to the child in the course of the proceedings. if the child is not likely to understand the same. Support person. their counsel. parent. Support persons (ß11) A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or making a deposition shall have the right to be accompanied by one or two persons of his own choosing to provide him emotional support. c. Function of facilitator:† Respective counsels for the parties shall pose questions to the child only through the facilitator. (1)†Both support persons shall remain within the view of the child during his testimony. or influence the child during his testimony. or relative. e. in words that are comprehensible to the child and which convey the meaning intended by counsel. support persons. sway. guidance counselor. Waiting area for child witnesses (ß12) that is separate from waiting areas used by other persons. direct and supervise the location. social worker. When appointed: child is unable to understand or respond to questions asked. also a witness 1 Disapproved if  it is sufficiently established that the attendance of the support person during the testimony of the child would pose a substantial risk of influencing or affecting the content of the testimony of the child. teacher.hlp©2009 Page 40 8/24/201140 take an oath or affirmation to make a true and accurate interpretation. (4)†The court shall instruct the support persons not to prompt. (2)†One of the support persons may accompany the child to the witness stand. guardian ad litem.† 2 If allowed  his testimony shall be presented ahead of the testimony of the child. The facilitator shall take an oath or affirmation to pose questions to the child according to the meaning intended by counsel. facilitator. or hearing officer. religious leader. Courtroom environment (ß13) Aim: create a more comfortable environment for the child court may. provided the support person does not completely obscure the child from the view of the opposing party. child. d. b.

shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact. drawings. The judge need not wear his judicial robe. shall be construed to require a child to look at the accused. and re-cross examinations as often as necessary depending on his developmental level. confuse. Questions of Admissibility . cross. if he chooses to look at them. puppets. (ß21) Weight given to testimony of child witness: strong. Recess during testimony (ß15)  The child may be allowed reasonable periods of relief while undergoing direct. Conduct of counsel: a counsel may be prohibited from approaching a child if it appears that the child is fearful of or intimidated by the counsel. Questions and objections thereto leading questions in all stages of examination of a child may be allowed if the same will further the interests of justice (ß20) Objections to questions should be couched in a manner so as not to mislead.The court shall exercise control over the questioning of children so as to (1) facilitate the ascertainment of the truth. corroboration not required . a child shall be allowed to have an item of his own choosing such as a blanket. h. (ß22) j. (3) protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment. toy. without turning his body or leaving the witness stand. (ß18) ii. iii.The court may allow the child witness to testify in a narrative form. f. Nothing in this section or any other provision of law. Mode of questioning: . anatomicallycorrect dolls. conclusion.hlp©2009 Page 41 8/24/201141 The witness chair or other place from which the child testifies may be turned to facilitate his testimony but the opposing party and his counsel must have a frontal or profile view of the child during the testimony of the child. The witness chair or other place from which the child testifies may also be rearranged to allow the child to see the opposing party and his counsel. IV. re-direct. frighten. Testimonial aids (ß16): use of dolls. Conduct in questioning the witness: i. mannequins. or intimidate the child. if credible by itself. and (4) avoid waste of time. or doll i.His testimony. Emotional security item (ß17): While testifying. (2) ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the child. g. Accommodations for the child under this section need not be supported by a finding of trauma to the child. except official in-court identification provisions. . or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and noncriminal cases. or any other appropriate demonstrative device to assist him in his testimony.

By whom conducted:  duly trained members of a multidisciplinary team or representatives of law enforcement or child protective services in situations where child abuse is suspected so as to determine whether child abuse occurred. or will be exposed to severe psychological injury. D. mental illness. Child is unavailable  the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the proponent. The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child misrepresented the involvement of the accused. and j. lack of memory. upon motion of the adverse party. or (2)†Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means. mental illness. his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence. or will be exposed to severe psychological injury. the court shall consider the time.  When unavailable: (1)†Is deceased. †When the child witness is unavailable. lack of memory. . It shall consider the following factors: c. require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the adverse party. Videotaped and audiotaped indepth investigative or disclosure interviews in child abuse cases (ß29) When admissible: 1 The child witness (1)†Is deceased. or (2)†Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable means. its proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object. Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child. criminal or non-criminal How admitted: 1) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted. a. Child is available  The court shall. The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote. Whether more than one person heard the statement. The general character of the declarant child. content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. e. d. all parties shall be afforded an opportunity to view or listen to it and shall be furnished a copy of a written transcript of the proceedings. Hearsay Exception in Child Abuse Cases (ß28) Where admitted: child abuse cases. 2 Before the videotape or audiotape is offered in evidence. suffers from physical infirmity. g. The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness. Whether there is a motive to lie. b. h. suffers from physical infirmity.hlp©2009 Page 42 8/24/201142 C. Whether the statement was spontaneous. f. 2) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement. i.

It may. (5)†The videotape or audiotape is authentic and correct. injury. and (2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad litem at least 3 days before the hearing of the motion. How admitted: 1. the court must conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the child. or any portion thereof. and the guardian ad litem. their counsel. however. Value of an investigative interview that was not done as required in this Rule: The fact that an investigative interview is not videotaped or audiotaped as required by this section shall not by itself constitute a basis to exclude from evidence outof-court statements or testimony of the child. (2) No tape. The motion and the record of the hearing must be sealed and remain under seal and protected by a protective order set forth in section 31(b). 2. G. (5) Agents of investigating law enforcement agencies. (3) Defense counsel. When admissible: Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen. (3)†The videotape and audiotape machine or device was capable of recording testimony. (2) The prosecuting attorney. his guardian ad litem. Other protective measures for the child (ß31) F. The child shall not be required to testify at the hearing in chambers except with his consent. and their counsel a right to attend and be heard. V. or other physical evidence shall be admissible. and (2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim. unless the court. requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial. Proof of the following must be given by party offering the videotape or audiotape: (1)†The videotape or audiotape discloses the identity of all individuals present and at all times includes their images and voices. the parties. Sexual abuse shield rule Inadmissible evidence in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse: (1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior. Confidentiality of records. be considered in determining the reliability of the statements of the child describing abuse. for good cause. E.hlp©2009 Page 43 8/24/201143  individual conducting the interview of the child shall be available at trial for examination by any party. (4) The guardian ad litem. and (6)†It has been duly preserved. shall be divulged by any person mentioned in sub-section (a) to any . their expert witness. When records may be released: upon written request and order of the court To whom may be released: (1) Members of the court staff for administrative use. (4)†The person operating the device was competent to operate it. and (6) Other persons as determined by the court. Before admitting such evidence. (2)†The statement was not made in response to questioning calculated to lead the child to make a particular statement or is clearly shown to be the statement of the child and not the product of improper suggestion. Protective order What are covered: Any videotape or audiotape of a child that is part of the court record Provisos of the protective order: (1) Tapes may be viewed only by parties. A party intending to offer such evidence must: (1) File a written motion at least 15 days before trial. specifically describing the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered.

inspected. Publication of identity contemptuous. What is prohibited: Publication or causing publication in any format the name. or disclosed to any person. his parents. A child has a right at any court proceeding not to testify regarding personal identifying information. 603. Additional protective orders. (4) Each of the tape cassettes and transcripts thereof made available to the parties. 968 or to enforce his civil . (7) This protective order shall remain in full force and effect until further order of the court. address. including his name. No. D. viewed. legal guardian. or the guardian ad litem. K. I. except as necessary for the trial. No additional copies of the tape or any of its portion shall be made. however. Records of youthful offender: privileged 1. the child. 2. he will be subject to the contempt power of the court. H. telephone number. and other information that could endanger his physical safety or his family.hlp©2009 Page 44 8/24/201144 other person. sold. Physical safety of child. or copied by any person. or an immediate family of the child Liability of violator: contempt of court J. issue additional orders to protect the privacy of the child. No. and respective agents shall bear the following cautionary notice: “This object or document and the contents thereof are subject to a protective order issued by the court in (case title). or other identifying information of a child who is or is alleged to be a victim or accused of a crime or a witness thereof. D. except as provided in the protective order. or dismisses the case or commits him to an institution and subsequently releases him pursuant to Chapter 3 of P. school. Destruction of videotapes and audiotapes produced under the provisions of this Rule or otherwise made part of the court record shall be destroyed after 5 years have elapsed from the date of entry of judgment. school. Youthful offender has been charged and the court acquits him. or shown to any person without prior court order. and that in case of violation thereof. all copies of the tape and any transcripts thereof shall be returned to the clerk of court for safekeeping unless the period is extended by the court on motion of a party. (case number). motu proprio or on motion of any party.” (5) No tape shall be given. their counsel. — The court may.  All the records of his case shall also be considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone EXCEPT to determine if a defendant may have his sentence suspended under Article 192 of P. No. that he submits to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the protective order. (6) Within 30 days from receipt. exclusion of evidence. require the child to testify regarding personal identifying information in the interest of justice. its transcription or any part thereof unless he signs a written affirmation that he has received and read a copy of the protective order. given. or shown to any person except as ordered by the court. Youthful offender has been charged before any city or provincial prosecutor or before any municipal judge and the charges have been ordered dropped  All the records of the case shall be considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone for any purpose whatsoever. loaned. D. The court may. Any person violating such protective order is subject to the contempt power of the court and other penalties prescribed by law. (3) No person shall be granted access to the tape. sold. address. telephone number. 603 or if he may be granted probation under the provisions of P. L. They shall not be examined. read.

and accompanied.How Proven = Rule 132. is admissible to prove that the records of his office contain no such record or entry.1. .1-BRecords of the official acts of the sovereign authority. 19 1. (ß32) Authentication and Proof of Documents 1. 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. consul.Any public record. Sec.hlp©2009 Page 45 8/24/201145 liability. All other public documents are evidence.Ancient Document Rule = Rule 132. 28 A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search. Sec.How Proven = Rule 132. if said liability has been imposed in the criminal action. . and evidence shall be applied in a suppletory character. 1.The attestation must state that the copy is a correct copy of the original or a specific part thereof. (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record.How Proven = Rule 132. vice-consul. 24 . and public officers.How Proven = Sec. *Contents of Attestation = Rule 132. If the record is in a foreign country. consul-general.2 Private Documents . 30 . (2) It is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. or by his deputy. 1. if there be any. . an official copy of which is admissible in evidence. 26 . accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody. Classes of Documents 1. (3) It is unblemished by . its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (1) by anyone who say the document executed or written. . Sec. Sec. whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country. the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved.2 Notarial Documents except last wills and testaments. if the record is not kept in the Philippines. and public officers. under the seal of such court. attested by the legal custodian of the record. conditional examination of witnesses.Notarial documents may be presented in evidence without further proof. Sec 25 .1. VI. as the case may be. 1. Suppletory application of Rules of Court: The provisions of the Rules of Court on deposition. 23 .1 Public Documents – Rule 132.1. 27 . must not be removed from the office in which it is kept. no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office. .Irremovability of Record = Rule 132.Proof of Lack of Record = Sec.3 Public Records (kept in the Philippines) of Private Documents required by law to be entered therein . even against a third person of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.  The youthful offender concerned shall not be held under any provision of law to be guilty of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made to him for any purpose. the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation. whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country.Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. with a certificate that such officer has the custody. . and authenticated by the seal of his office.Such may be proved by the original record. or a copy thereof. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. 20 Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence. Sec.The record may be evidenced by: (1) an official publication thereof.1-A Written official acts of the sovereign authority.1. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer. 1. or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. 21 Requisites: (1) The private document is more than 30 years old.How Proven = Rule 132. except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case. Sec. official bodies and tribunals. with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. official bodies and tribunals. or (2) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Sec.

De Onate vs. 31 . Documents Written in an Unofficial Language – Rule 132.Documentary Evidence = after the presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence. no other evidence of its authenticity is required. Offer and Objection 1. 32 . Sec. 36 . where they will admit the genuineness and due execution of the private writing.For evidence to be considered by the court . 1.Not admissible unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. or j) The alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. 34 1 Why made? . It provides that if an actionable document is the basis of a complaint of an answer.proof that the document being offered is the same one referred to by the witness in his testimony 2.hlp©2009 Page 46 8/24/201146 any alterations suspicion. Alterations – Rule 132. or circumstances of If all requisites have been met.1 When to make offer – Rule 132. IS THERE ANY WAY TO AVOID THE TEDIOUS PROCESS OF AUTHENTICATION? 1. or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged. Failure to object within 15 days.Testimonial Evidence = must be objected to immediately after the offer is made. or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. in a part material to the question in dispute.proof of document’s due execution and genuineness 4.Request for admission of the genuineness and due execution of a private writing. with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. or i) was otherwise properly or innocent made. Sec. which has not been formally offered. The same must have been incorporated to the records of the case (Mata Vda. Inspection 5. 35 . Marking 3. Rule on actionable documents (Rule 8). The same must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded 2. 2.court shall consider no evidence. Sec. Pre-trial of civil and criminal case wherein parties may enter into stipulations. Sec. or (c) fraud in the party offering the record. 29 How done – By evidence of (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer. CA) STAGES in the presentation of documentary evidence 1. offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing. . (b) collusion between the parties. Authentication. When evidence admitted even if not formally offered: 1. 1. Formal Offer 6.The party producing a document as genuine. 22 It may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write. Offer of Evidence – Rule 132. Sec. = Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefore shall become reasonably apparent.There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. Objections 2. deemed admitted. Sec. in respect to the proceedings. Identification. Objection . must account for the alteration. Impeachment of Judicial Record – Rule 132. Mode of discovery.Rule 132. Sec. If there is failure to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document that judicial admission will take the place of authentication 2. 3. parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. or h) made with the consent of the parties affected by it. . the law requires that it should be annexed to the pleading or that the contents thereof be copied in verbatim.33 . Seal – Rule 132. which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution. .Testimonial Evidence = at the time the witness is called to testify. Sec.He may show that the alteration was made f) by another. How Genuineness of Handwriting is Proven = Rule 132. 3. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison made by the witness or the court. g) without his concurrence. Failure to do so would result in the inadmissibility of evidence.

= Number of witnesses (note preponderance that is not necessarily equated with the no. 40 . Sec. 1 . . irrelevant or otherwise improper. incompetent. 39 . CA. Sec. petitioner waived this defect by failing to object when the ground became reasonably apparent the moment private respondent was called to testify without any prior offer having been made. or inadmissible.How determined? The court may consider: = All the facts and circumstances of the case. Tender of Excluded Evidence – Rule 132.Testimonial evidence – the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony. = Their interest or want of interest. = The witnesses’ manner of testifying. 38 = Given immediately after the objection is made.The court may sustain an objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its objection and such objection is found to be meritorious. (Catuira vs. refers to testimonial. Does not specify the grounds 2. but the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling. 1995) OFFER OF PROOF/TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE vs. Kinds of Objection 1.States the ground . 1994) The rule requiring that there must be a formal offer of evidence before the evidence can be considered may be relaxed provided the evidence must have duly identified by testimony duly recorded and they must have been incorporated in the records of the case. Sec. That a document has been identified does not mean that it will be offered. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence A. 37 (Rule on Continuing Objection) It shall not be necessary to repeat the objection when it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made. (Interpacific Transit vs. = Personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. Sec. There is a distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer as an exhibit. irrelevant. order the striking out of answers. upon proper motion.hlp©2009 Page 47 8/24/201147 .Ruling – Rule 132. 1990) While there was no offer of the testimony.The court may also. a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied upon. Second. = The probability or improbability of their testimony. unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented. However. . 3. VIII. Sec. Preponderance of Evidence (Civil Cases) – Rule 133. CA. (Vda. = Their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they testify.Documentary Evidence = shall be objected to within 3 days after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court.does not go beyond declaring the evidence as immaterial. .Documentary evidence – the offeror may have the same attached or made part of the record. The former is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence while the latter is done only when the party rests his/her case. if the objection is based on two or more grounds. = Their intelligence. documentary or object evidence that are presented or offered in court by a party so that the court can consider his evidence when it comes to the preparation of the decision. General or broadside. of witnesses) . which are incompetent. is only resorted to if admission is refused by the court for purposes of review on appeal. Required Quantum of Evidence 1. Aviles. OFFER OF EVIDENCE First. = The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. Motion to Strike – Rule 132. whether such objection was sustained or overruled. De OÒate vs. Specific. 4.When repetition is unnecessary – Rule 132. It shall be sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing objection to such class of questions.

There is more than 1 circumstance. Sec. false in everything). Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Criminal Cases) – Rule 133. so there is no need to repeat in the trial what have been covered in the hearing of the motion) CIVIL CASES: Application for preliminary attachment/injunction Motion to dismiss founded on certain facts which are not solely predicated on absence of jurisdiction or failure to state a COA. 2 .Affidavits or . Substantial Evidence (Administrative/QuasiJudicial Cases) – Rule133. falsus in omnibus (False in one thing. when he is in control of an instrumentality causing an injury in the absence of some explanation by him. Section 7) Examples of motion which need hearing hence the presentation of evidence: CRIMINAL CASES: Motion for bail (Under Criminal Procedure.What is substantial evidence? The amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. (Rule 133.It deals only with the weight of evidence and not a positive rule of law .A procedural device which presumes that the person is negligent.Depositions presented by the respective parties but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. court may disregard all the witness’ testimony. 3. i. OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION.What is proof beyond reasonable doubt? = That degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification 5. Sec. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Witness’ degree of attention at that time 3. (Not a mandatory rule of evidence) . Extrajudicial Confessions – Rule 133. The length of time between the crime and the identification 6. b. 4 . THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCE TEST 1.hlp©2009 Page 48 8/24/201148 2. is not a sufficient ground for conviction UNLESS corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. C.An extrajudicial confession made by an accused. it is predicated on the ground of payment (Same with Criminal Case. Circumstantial Evidence – Rule 133.Requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction: a. this power should be exercised with caution. Witness’ opportunity to view the criminal act at the time of the crime 2.The court may accept and reject portions of the witness’ testimony depending on the inherent credibility thereof. Section 6) *How will the court dispose of a motion which is based on facts not appearing of record? Court may hear the matter on . Falsus in uno. is willfully false and given with an intention to deceive.The witnesses’ false or exaggerated statements on other matters shall not preclude the acceptance of such evidence as is relieved from any sign of falsehood . 3 . and c. (Rule 133. 5 . The accuracy of any prior description given by the witness 4. = Absolute certainty is not required. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure res ipsa loquitur (The thing speaks for itself). Sec. the evidence taken up during the hearing of the motion will form part automatically of the records of the case. *May the court stop the introduction of further testimony? YES upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. only moral certainty.If the testimony of the witness on a material issue . evidence taken up during hearing made part automatically of records of the case) Rules on Electronic Evidence Scope B. Sec.e.

(R6. By any other means provided by law. Disputable presumptions relating to esignatures: (R6. 2. by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished. and. 3. ß1) Admissible in evidence if it complies with the . signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. ß1g) Electronic Signatures (R2. Includes digital signatures o Refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic document and the signer’s public key can accurately determine: (i) Whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signer’s public key. (R1.hlp©2009 Page 49 8/24/201149 Unless otherwise provided herein. ß1h) Information or the representation of information. which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. 5. Functional equivalent of paper-based documents. 2. stored. the term “electronic document” may be used interchangeably with “electronic data message”. figures. ß3) 1. No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or revocable. ß1j) Refers to any distinctive mark. ß1) How authenticated? (R6. transmitted. or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed. ß2) Electronic data message Information generated. For purposes of these Rules. received or stored by electronic. 2. ß2) 1. (R3. or 3. ß4) 1. optical or similar means. (R2. (R2. these Rules shall apply whenever an electronic document or electronic data message (R1. The digital signature was created during the operational period of a certificate. recorded. All civil actions and proceedings. characteristic and/or sound in electronic form. and. ß1) Cases covered. and 3. 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. symbols or other modes of written expression. A certificate had been issued by the certification authority indicated therein. retrieved or produced electronically. as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases. The information contained in a certificate is correct. data. sent. ß1f) Admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written document. Electronic document (R2. The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of authenticating or approving the electronic document to which it is related or to indicate such person’s consent to the transaction embodied therein. (ii) Whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation was made. The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify the electronic signature operated without error or fault. which is received. The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates. Includes digitally signed documents and any printout or output. 4. (R2. The message associated with a digital signature has not been altered from the time it was signed. ß1e) o “Digitally signed” refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a digital signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate. readable by sight or other means. described or however represented. By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of the electronic signature. By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature and verify the same. processed. Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures: (R6.

or (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge. (b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified. > Integrity of an information and communication system. among others. (d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the communication and information system. or from the same matrix. If in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original.  When copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original: 3. (e) 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. its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means: (a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same. the court may consider. (c) The integrity of the information and communication system in which it is recorded or stored. 2 Manner of authentication – Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence. A document electronically notarized in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document under the Rules of Court.  Evidentiary Weight Of Electronic Documents (R7) > Factors for assessing evidentiary weight. If a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original. or 4. (R3. or (f) Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the accuracy or integrity of the electronic document or electronic data message. stored or communicated. controls. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents. shown to reflect the data accurately. or by other equivalent techniques that accurately reproduces the original. including but not limited to input and output procedures. tests and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data message or document.  Authentication of Electronic Documents (R5) 1 Burden of proving authenticity: person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity. (b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document. ß3) 3 BEST EVIDENCE RULE: (R4) o 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. Is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original. or 2. or by chemical reproduction. (R3. or by mechanical or electronic re-recording. ß2) Confidential character of a privileged communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document. in the light of all the circumstances as well as any relevant agreement.hlp©2009 Page 50 8/24/201150 rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules. including but not limited to the hardware and computer programs or software used as well as programming errors. o Originals And Copies:  When copies or duplicates regarded as originals: 1. – In any dispute involving the integrity of the information and communication system in which an electronic document or electronic data message is recorded or stored. the following factors: (a) Whether the information and communication system or other similar device was operated in a . (a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated.

transmission or storage thereof. had been electronically recorded. Before so authorizing. who shall certify as correct the transcript done by him. steno typist or other recorder authorized for the purpose. ß2) Audio. photographic and video evidence of events. text messages. and such was the regular practice to make the memorandum. and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and communication system. record. Such transcript and recording shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such proceedings. the entire proceedings. made by electronic.  The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to testify on the matters contained therein. When examination of a witness is done electronically. optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof. ß1) This presumption may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or circumstances of the preparation. o Same rule covers a recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall be covered by the immediately preceding section.  The affiant shall be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit in open court and may be crossexamined as a matter of right by the adverse party. and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity. or diagnoses. other competent evidence may be admitted. all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses. including the questions and answers. opinions. explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof. acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be shown. record or data compilation of acts. the court shall determine the necessity for such presentation and prescribe terms and conditions as may be necessary under the circumstances. or data compilation by electronic. and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. events. presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified. ß2) How are matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic document established? (R9) o by an affidavit stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. (R8. photographic and video . audio. including the protection of the rights of the parties and witnesses concerned. conditions. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses. Examination Of Witnesses (R10) Electronic testimony 1 After summarily hearing the parties pursuant to Rule 9 of these Rules. Hearsay rule exception: A memorandum. either in whole or in part. photographic and video evidence (R11. optical or similar means. the court may authorize the presentation of testimonial evidence by 2 3 electronic means. If ephemeral. ß1k) 2 Shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. report. or (c)†Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not a party to the proceedings and who did not act under the control of the party using it. chatroom sessions. The electronic evidence and recording thereof as well as the stenographic notes shall form part of the record of the case. streaming video. shall be transcribed by a stenographer. ßß1-2) Audio.hlp©2009 Page 51 8/24/201151 manner that did not affect the integrity of the electronic document. Ephemeral electronic communication 1 Refers to telephone conversations. (R8. report. streaming audio. (b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored by a party to the proceedings with interest adverse to that of the party using it. (R11. The transcript should reflect the fact that the proceedings. (R2.

This includes blood. (b) The DNA testing methodology. which biological sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person. saliva and other body fluids. either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. Petition for certiorari shall not stay the implementation of order unless a higher court issues an injunctive order. and (f) "Probability of Parentage" means 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. except identical twins. (c) "DNA evidence" constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles. (b) such sample is relevant to the case. An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory and shall not be appealable. If the laboratory is not accredited. Factors in Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. (c) The forensic DNA laboratory. (R11. results and other genetic information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples. including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples. at any time. Grant of a DNA testing application NOT an automatic admission of DNA evidence. that is susceptible to DNA testing.hlp©2009 Page 52 8/24/201152 evidence are recorded or embodied in an electronic document. which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. tissues. or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing. ß2) RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (a) "Biological sample" means any organic material originating from a person's body. and chan robles virtual law library (e) The existence of other factors. the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure. including accreditation by any reputable standardssetting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. order a DNA testing. including how the biological samples were collected. if any. including law enforcement agencies. and (c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction. and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests. without need of a prior court order. (d) "DNA profile" means genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a person. The totality of an individual's DNA is unique for the individual. the relevant . even if found in inanimate objects. to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that (a) a biological sample exists. before a suit or proceeding is commenced. then the provisions authentication electronic documents apply. (b) "DNA" means deoxyribonucleic acid. but the results may require confirmation for good reasons. which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body. (b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested. how they were handled. The appropriate court may. hairs and bones. (d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case. Application for DNA Testing Order. (e) "DNA testing" means verified and credible scientific methods which include the extraction of DNA from biological samples. Post-conviction DNA testing may be available. (c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique. This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing. (a) The chain of custody. and the possibility of contamination of the samples. with reasonable certainty. without need of prior court order. at the behest of any party. 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). Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following: (a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case. the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the information obtained from the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining.

In case the court. and (d) The reliability of the testing result conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders. or ii. (a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99. whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested. Indirect Contempt. Shall only be released to any of the following. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99. after due hearing. until such time as the accused has served his sentence. the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. (d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the correctness of data generated. The trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totality. for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an offense. (b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence presented in the case. including all biological samples. or with any member of said courts. (d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies. that is. (c) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action. (b) Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where the DNA evidence is offered and presented or sought to be offered and presented. and (c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. For this purpose.to those who publishes or disclose the DNA results without proper court order Preservation of DNA Evidence.9%. The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin. FACTORS in evaluating the Reliability of DNA Testing Methodology. (a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used. which may . under such terms and conditions as may be set forth by the court: (a) Person from whom the sample was taken. (e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database. (c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific community. it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict. Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the Convict. in case the accused is serving sentence. and (b) In all other cases. there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity. DNA profiles and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing. Through order of the court.hlp©2009 Page 53 8/24/201153 experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established. FACTORS in Evaluation of DNA Testing Results. and (f) 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. chan robles virtual law library Physical destruction of a biological sample before the expiration of the periods set forth above. finds the petition to be meritorious. until such time as the decision in the case where the DNA evidence was introduced has become final and executory.9% or higher. provided that: (a) There is a court order or (b) The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to the disposal of the DNA evidence. and (e) Other persons as determined by the court. RELEASE OF DNA results. the court may order the appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA evidence as follows: (a) In criminal cases: i. A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. (b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods. unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->