EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

I. INTRODUCTION TO FACTUM PROBANDUM

DEFINITION
• The means, sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth
respecting a matter of fact. [Rule 128, Sec. 1]
• The mode and manner of proving competent
facts in judicial proceedings. [Bustos v. Lucero]
• The ultimate fact or the fact sought to be
established. It refers to the proposition (e.g.
victim was stabbed).
TO FACTUM PROBANS
• The evidentiary fact or the fact by which the
factum probandum is to be established; refers
to the materials that establish the proposition
(e.g. bloody knife).

SCOPE

• General Rule: Rules of evidence shall be the

same in all courts and in all trials and hearings
• Exception: If otherwise provided by:
1) law;
2) ROC.

CLASSIFICATION

ROC CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO FORM

1) OBJECT – Directly addressed to the senses of
the court [Rule 130, Sec. 1]
• Referred to as real evidence or evidence by
“autoptic preference”.
2) DOCUMENTARY - Consist of writing or any
material containing modes of written
expression (i.e. words, numbers, figures,
symbols) offered as proof of their contents.
[Rule 130, Sec. 2]
3) TESTIMONIAL - Submitted to the court
through the testimony or deposition of a
witness.

OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS [Regalado]

1) DIRECT – Proves the fact in dispute without
aid of any inference or presumption.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL – Proof of fact/s from
which, taken singly/collectively, the existence
of the particular fact in dispute may be inferred
as a necessary/probable consequence. It is
evidence of relevant collateral facts.
2) CUMULATIVE – Evidence of the same kind and
to the same state of facts.
CORROBORATIVE – Additional evidence of a
different character to the same point.
3) PRIMA FACIE – That which, standing alone, is
sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed.
CONCLUSIVE – That class of evidence which
the law does not allow to be contradicted.
4) PRIMARY – (Best evidence) The law regards
these as affording the greatest certainty of the
fact in question.
SECONDARY – (Substitutionary evidence)
Permitted by law only when the best evidence
is unavailable.
5) POSITIVE – When a witness affirms that a fact
did or did not occur (there is personal
knowledge).
NEGATIVE – When witness states that he did
not see or know of the occurrence of a fact
(total disclaimer of personal knowledge).

EVIDENCE COMPARED

TO PROOF
• It is the result or effect of evidence; when the
requisite quantum of evidence of a particular
fact has been duly admitted and given weight,
the result is called the proof of such fact.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 1 of 26

EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

II. ADMISSIBILITY a) Unreasonable searches and seizures;

privacy of communication and
correspondence. [Art. 3, Sec 2 & 3,
Consti]
WHEN DETERMINED b) Miranda Rights; right to counsel,
prohibition on torture, force, violence,
• At the time evidence is offered to the court. threat, intimidation or other means
[Rule 132, Sec. 35] which vitiate the free will; prohibition of
secret detention places, solitary,
KINDS OF ADMISSIBILITY incommunicado. [Art. 3, Sec. 12,
Consti]
c) No person shall be compelled to be a
1) CONDITIONAL – Evidence, at the time
witness against himself. [Art. 3, Sec.
offered, appears to be immaterial/irrelevant
17, Consti]
unless it is connected with other facts to be
2) Statutory:
subsequently proved. The evidence may be
a) Lack of documentary stamp tax to
received in condition that the other facts will be
documents required to have one makes
proved thereafter; but there should be no bad
such document inadmissible as
faith.
evidence in court until the requisite
2) MULTIPLE – Evidence is relevant and
stamp/s shall have been affixed thereto
competent for 2 or more purposes.
and cancelled. [Sec. 201, NIRC]
3) CURATIVE – Considers a party’s right to
b) Any communication obtained by a
introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf
person, not being authorized by all the
where the court has admitted the same kind of
parties to any private communication,
evidence adduced by the adverse party.
by tapping any wire/cable or using any
other device/arrangement to secretly
RELEVANCE AND COMPETENCE overhear/intercept/record such
information by using any device, shall
• ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE – Evidence that is not be admissible in evidence in any
both relevant and competent. [Rule 128, Sec. judicial/quasi-judicial/legislative/
3] administrative hearing or investigation.
[Sec. 1 & 4 RA 4200 (Wire-Tapping
RELEVANCE [Rule 128, Sec. 4] Act)]
• Definition: Evidence has such a relation to the • An extension phone cannot be
fact in issue as to induce belief of its existence placed in the same category as a
or non-existence. dictaphone, dictograph or the other
• General rule: Evidence on collateral matters is devices enumerated in Sec. 1 of RA
not allowed. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be
• COLLATERAL MATTERS – Matters other considered as “tapping” the
than the fact in issue and which are offered wire/cable of a telephone line.
as a basis for inference as to the existence [Ganaan v. IAC (1986)]
or non-existence of the facts in issue. c) Rules on Electronic Document.
• Exception: When it tends in any d) CC presumptions (e.g. Art. 2185 as to
reasonable degree to establish the presumption of negligence when there
im/probability of fact in issue. is violation of traffic rules).
• Evidence may be relevant but immaterial to the e) Commercial laws (e.g. Art. 448, Code
case. of Commerce on the evidentiary weight
of conflicting entries in merchants’
Relevance Material books).
Definition Evidence having Evidence directed
any value in reason to prove a fact in RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY
as tending to prove issue as
any matter determined by the
provable in an rules of substantive 1. OBJECT EVIDENCE
action law and pleading
Test Logical relation of Determined by • Definition: Those addressed to the senses of
the evidence to the WON the fact it the court. [Rule 130, Sec. 1]
fact in issue (i.e. intends to prove is
WON the former in issue
• It includes the anatomy of a person or of
tends to establish any substance taken therefrom. [US v. Tan
probability or Teng]
improbability of the • General rule: When object is relevant to the
latter) fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined
Refers to the Refers to the or viewed by the court. [Rule 130, Sec. 1]
tendency in reason relationship • Exception: Court may refuse introduction
of offered fact A to between fact B and of object evidence and rely on testimonial
prove fact B the issues in the
alone if:
case
1) Its exhibition is contrary to public
policy, morals or decency;
2) It would result in delays,
COMPETENCE [Rule 128, Sec. 3]
inconvenience, unnecessary expenses,
out of proportion to the evidentiary
• Definition: Evidence is not excluded by law or
value of such object; [People v.
ROC.
Tavera]
• Exclusionary rules:
1) Constitutional:

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 2 of 26

EVIDENCE
3) The evidence would be confusing or
misleading. [People v. Saavedra]
2. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
• Definition: Writings or any material containing
letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or
other modes of written expression offered as
proof of their content. [Rule 130, Sec. 2]
a. BEST EVIDENCE RULE [Rule 130,
Sec. 3]
• General rule: When the subject of inquiry is
the contents of a document, no evidence shall
be admissible other than the original document
itself.
• Exception:
1) When the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the offeror’s
part;
2) When the original is in custody or under
control of party against whom evidence
is offered, and latter fails to produce it
after reasonable notice;
3) 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;
4) When the original is a public record in
the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office.
ORIGINAL OF A DOCUMENT
• Definition: [Rule 130, Sec. 4]
1) One the contents of which are the subject
of inquiry.
2) When a document is in 2 or more copies
executed at or about the same time, with
identical contents, all such copies are
equally regarded as originals.
3) When an entry is repeated in the regular
course of business, one being copied from
another at/near the time of the transaction,
all the entries are likewise equally regarded
as originals.
• Affidavits and depositions are considered not
being the best evidence, hence not admissible
if the affiants/deponents are available as
witnesses. The contents of such affidavits and
depositions are not the issues in the case but
are only intended as evidence to establish the
issues in controversy. [Regalado]
• Carbon copies are deemed duplicate originals.
They may be introduced as evidence without
accounting for the non-production of the
original. [People vs. Tan (1959)]
• The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the
contents of the document are the subject of
inquiry. It does not apply when the issue is
only as to WON such document was actually
executed or in the circumstances relevant to its
execution. [People v. Tandoy (1990)]
b. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
WHEN SECONDARY EVIDENCE MAY BE
INTRODUCED
1) Original document is unavailable (lost,
destroyed or cannot be produced in court);
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
• The offeror, upon proof of its
execution/existence and cause of its
unavailability, without bad faith on his part,
may prove its contents by (in order): [Rule
130, Sec. 5]
a) A copy;
b) A recital of its contents in some
authentic document;
c) The testimony of witnesses.
2) Original document is in adverse party’s
custody/control. [Rule 130, Sec. 6]
• 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, he fails to produce
the document, secondary evidence may be
presented.
3) Original document is a public record. [Rule 130,
Sec. 7]
• Its contents may be proved by a
certified copy issued by the public
officer in custody thereof.
• The offeror of secondary evidence is burdened
to prove: [Lee v. People (2004)]
1) The loss or destruction of the original
without bad faith on the part of the
proponent/offeror which can be shown by
circumstantial evidence of routine practices
of destruction of documents;
2) The proponent must prove by a fair
preponderance of evidence as to raise a
reasonable inference of the loss or
destruction of the original copy;
3) It must be shown that a diligent and bona
fide but unsuccessful search has been
made for the document in the proper place
or places. It has been held that where the
missing document is the foundation of the
action, more strictness in proof is required
than where the document is only
collaterally involved.
• If the document is one in which other persons
are also interested, and which has been placed
in the hands of a custodian for safekeeping, the
custodian must be required to make a search
and the fruitlessness of such search must be
shown, before secondary evidence can be
admitted. The certificate of the custody of the
document is incompetent to prove the loss or
destruction thereof. Such fact must be proved
by some person who has knowledge of such
loss. [Lee v. People (2004)]
• Where the original is in the custody of the
adverse party, it is not necessary that it be in
the actual possession of the adverse party. It
is enough that the circumstances show that the
writing is in his possession or under his control.
Secondary evidence is admissible where the
adverse party denies having it in his
possession. [Villa Rey Transit v. Ferrer (1968)]
• All duplicates/counterparts must be accounted
for before using copies as evidence. [De Vera
v. Aguilar (1983)]
• The voluminous character of the document
must be established before evidence other than
the original may be introduced. [Maritima v.
Allied Free Workers (1977)]
• When the original is outside the jurisdiction of
the court, as when it is in a foreign country,
secondary evidence is admissible. [PNB v.
Olila]
2008 Page 3 of 26
EVIDENCE
• Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary
evidence to prove the contents of the original
sales invoices, the offeror must prove the
following: (1) the existence or due execution of
the original; (2) the loss and destruction of the
original or the reason for its nonproduction in
court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the
absence of bad faith to which the unavailability
of the original can be attributed. The correct
order of proof is as follows: existence,
execution, loss, and contents. At the sound
discretion of the court, this order may be
changed if necessary. [Citibank v. Teodoro
(2003)]
• A party who calls for the production of a
document and inspects it is not obliged to offer
it as evidence. [Rule 130, Sec. 8]
c. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE [Rule
130, Sec. 9]
• Definition: Any evidence aliunde, whether oral
or written, which is intended or tends to vary or
contradict a complete and enforceable
agreement embodied in a document.
• General rule: When the terms of an
agreement (including wills) have been reduced
to writing, it is considered as containing all the
terms agreed upon and there can be, between
the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents
of the written agreement.
• Exception: A party may present evidence
to modify, explain or add to the terms of
written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading:
1) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement;
• Mistake here refers to a mistake of
fact mutual to the parties or where
the innocent party was imposed
upon by unfair dealing of the other.
• Imperfection includes an inaccurate
statement in the agreement or
incompleteness in the writing or the
presence of inconsistent provisions
therein.
2) The failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent and agreement
of the parties thereto;
3) The validity of the written agreement;
4) The existence of other terms agreed to
by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the
written agreement.
Latent/intrinsic Patent/extrinsic
validity validity
When the writing on its Ambiguity which is
face appears clear and apparent on the face of
unambiguous but there the writing itself and
are collateral matters or requires something to be
circumstances which make added in order to
the meaning uncertain or ascertain the meaning of
where a writing admits of the words used
two constructions both of
which are in harmony with
the language used
Parol evidence admissible Parol evidence not
admissible, otherwise the
court would thereby not
be construing a contract
but would be rather
creating a contract
between the parties
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
• The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply to
collateral agreements. [PNB v. Seeto (1952)]
• The rule does not apply to exclude evidence of
conditions subsequent in a deed of sale where
such conditions were not stated in the
agreement. [Pioneer Savings v. CA]
• 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. [Woodhouse v. Halili (1953)]
• It does not apply either when 3rd parties are
involved. [Lechugas v. CA (1986)]
• The exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule must
be squarely put in issue. [Ortañez v. CA
(1997)]
Parol Evidence Rule Best Evidence Rule
Presupposes that the Contemplates the
original document is situation wherein the
available in court original writing is not
available and/or there is a
dispute as to whether said
writing is the original
Prohibits the varying of the Prohibits the introduction
terms of a written of substitutionary
agreement evidence in lieu of the
original document
regardless of WON it
varies the contents of the
original
Applies only to documents Applies to all kinds of
contractual in nature documents
(Exception: wills)
Can be invoked only when Can be invoked by any
the controversy is between party to an action
the parties to the written regardless of WON such
agreement, their privies or party participated in the
any party directly affected writing involved
thereby
d. RULES ON INTERPRETATION OF
DOCUMENTS
1) Interpretation of a writing according to the
legal meaning it bears in the place of
execution, unless parties intended otherwise.
[Rule 130, Sec. 10]
2) Instrument construed so as to give effect to all
provisions. [Rule 130, Sec. 11]
3) Parties’ intention is to be pursued in
construction of instrument. In the inconsistency
between general and particular provision, the
latter prevails. Particular intent controls general
one inconsistent with it. [Rule 130, Sec. 12]
4) The circumstances under which an insturment
was made, including the situation of the
subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be
shown, so that the judge may be placed in the
position of those whose language he is to
interpret. [Rule 130, Sec. 13]
5) The terms of a writing are presumed to have
been used in their primary and general
acceptation, but evidence is admissible to show
that they have a local/technical/peculiar
signification and were so used and understood
in the particular instance, in which case the
agreement must be construed accordingly.
[Rule 130, Sec. 14]
6) When there is inconsistency between written
words and printed words, the former controls
over the latter. [Rule 130, Sec. 14]
7) Experts and interpreters to be used in
explaining writings that are difficult to be
2008 Page 4 of 26
EVIDENCE
deciphered, or where the language is not
understood by the court. [Rule 130, Sec. 16]
8) When the terms of an agreement have been
intended in a different sense by the different
parties to it, that sense is to prevail against
either party in which he supposed the other
understood it. And when different constructions
of a provision are otherwise equally proper,
that is to be taken which is the most favorable
to the party in whose favor the provision is
made. [Rule 130, Sec. 17]
9) Construction in favor of natural right. [Rule
130, Sec. 18]
10) Interpretation according to usage to determine
instrument’s true character. [Rule 130, Sec.
19]
3. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
a. WITNESSES’ QUALIFICATION
• General rule: All persons who can perceive,
and, perceiving, can make their known
perception to others, may be witnesses.
Religious/political belief, interest in the
outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be
ground for disqualification. [Rule 130, Sec. 20]
• Exception: Disqualifications:
1) By reason of mental incapacity or
immaturity; [Rule 130, Sec. 21]
a) Those whose mental condition, at
the time of their production for
examination, is such that they are
incapable of intelligently making
known their perception to others.
• A mental retardate is not for
this reason alone disqualified
from being a witness. [People
v. Salomon (1993)]
b) 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.
• Every child is presumed
qualified to be a witness.
However, the court shall
conduct a competency
examination of a child, motu
propio or on motion of a party,
when it finds that substantial
doubt exists regarding the
ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate,
distinguish truth from
falsehood, or appreciate the
duty to tell the truth in court.
[Sec. 6, AM 00-4-07-SC (Child
Witness Rule)]
• Requisites of competency of a
child as witness: [People vs.
Mendoza (1996)]
(1) Capacity of observation;
(2) Capacity of recollection;
(3) Capacity of communication.
2) By reason of marriage; [Rule 130, Sec.
22]
• General rule: During their
marriage, neither the husband nor
the wife may testify for or against
the other without the consent of
the affected spouse.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
• Exception:
a) In a civil case by one
against the other;
b) In a criminal case for a
crime committed by one
against the other or the
latter's direct
descendants/ascendants.
• The wife is competent
to testify against her
husband in a
prosecution against him
for raping their
daughter. [Ordoño v.
Daguigan]
• Purpose: Privilege to prevent
testimony by other spouse based
on an aversion to use judicial
compulsion in a litigation to place
spouses in an opposing posture
that may weaken or destroy their
marriage. [People v. Francisco]
• This privilege is also given to a
spouse to prevent the other from
testifying in his favor. [People v.
Franciso]
• For this rule to apply, the marriage
must be valid and existing at the
time the testimony was offered.
[Arroyo v. Azur]
3) By reason of death/insanity of adverse
party [Rule 130, Sec. 23]
• “Dead Man’s Statute” or
“Survivorship Rule”
• General rule: Parties or assignors
of parties to a case, or persons in
whose behalf a case is prosecuted,
against an executor/administrator
or other representative of a
deceased person, or against a
person of unsound mind, upon a
claim/demand against the estate of
such deceased person or against
such person of unsound mind,
cannot testify as to any matter of
fact occurring before the death of
such deceased person or before
such person became of unsound
mind.
• Exception:
• The survivor may testify
against the estate of the
deceased where the latter
was guilty of fraud which
fraud was established by
evidence other than the
testimony of the survivor.
[Ong Chua v. Carr]
• He may also testify where
he was the one sued by the
decedent’s estate since the
action then is not against
the estate. [Tongco v.
Vianzon]
• He may likewise testify
where the estate had filed a
counterclaim against him or
where the estate cross-
examined him as to
matters occurring during
the lifetime of the
deceased. [Goñi v. CA]
• Purpose: To guard against the
temptation to give false testimony
2008 Page 5 of 26
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

on the part of the surviving party client to liability;

and to put the parties to the suit
upon terms of equality in regard to
opportunity to produce evidence.
[Bautista]
• The survivor-witness must be a
claimant against the estate and not
a disinterested 3rd party. [Sunga-
Chan v. Chua]
b. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
1) Marital privilege; [Rule 130, Sec. 24(a)]
• Purpose: Privilege for confidential
communications justified on the ground
that it promotes marital harmony. Marital
partners should be encouraged to share
their most closely-guarded secrets as an
additional measure of intimacy and mutual
support to their marriage.
• General rule: Husband or the wife, during
or after the marriage, cannot be examined
without the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by
one from the other during the marriage
• Exception:
a) In a civil case by one against the
other;
b) In a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other
or the latter's direct
descendants/ascendants.
• A widow of a victim allegedly murdered
may testify as to her husband’s dying
declaration as to how he died the since the
same was not intended to be confidential.
[US v. Antipolo]
Marital disqualification Marital privilege [Rule
[Rule 130, Sec. 22] 130, Sec. 24]
Broader since it prevents all Limited to those made
adverse testimony between during the course of the
spouses and not merely marriage
disclosure of confidential
communications and may
even cover matters
occurring prior to the
marriage
One spouse should be a Where neither spouse is
party to the case a party, this is the
disqualifying rule
2) Attorney-client privilege; [Rule 130, Sec.
24(b)]
• An attorney cannot, without the consent of
his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him,
his advice given thereon in the course of,
or with a view to, professional employment.
Nor can an attorney's secretary,
stenographer or clerk be examined, without
the consent of the client and his employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which
has been acquired in such capacity.
• General rule: The attorney-client privilege
may not be invoked to refuse to divulge the
identity of the client.
• Exception: [Regala v. Sandiganbayan
(1996)]
a) 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;
b) When disclosure would open the
c) When the name would furnish the
only link that would form the chain
of testimony necessary to convict.
3) Physician-patient privilege; [Rule 130, Sec.
24(c)]
• General rule: A person authorized to
practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics
cannot in a civil case, without the consent
of the patient, be examined as to any
advice or treatment given by him or any
information which he may have acquired in
attending such patient in a professional
capacity, which information was necessary
to enable him to act in capacity, and which
would blacken the reputation of the patient.
• Exception:
• The prohibition against the
disclosure does not apply to 3rd
parties but only to the physician.
[Bautista; Krohn v. CA]
• The privilege belongs to the
patient, not the physician so that
the latter cannot claim it if the
patient abandons it. [Bautista]
• This privilege does not apply when
the doctor is presented as an
expert witness and only
hypothetical problems were
presented to him. [Lim v. CA
(1992)]
4) Priest-petinent privilege; [Rule 130, Sec.
24(d)]
• A minister or priest cannot, without the
consent of the person making the
confession, be examined as to any
confession made to or 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.
5) Public officer privilege; [Rule 130, Sec. 24(e)]
• A public officer cannot be examined during
his term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the
public interest would suffer by the
disclosure.
6) Parental and filial privilege. [Rule 130, Sec. 25]
• A person cannot be compelled to testify
against his parents, other direct
ascendants, children or other direct
descendants.
• The specific enumeration of disqualified
witnesses in the ROC is understood to exclude
the operation of causes of disability other than
those mentioned therein. [Cavili v. Fernando]
• The failure of a witness to take an oath prior to
his testimony is a defect that may be waived by
the parties. [People v. Zheng Bai Hi]
c. ADMISSIONS AND
CONFESSIONS
ADMISSIONS
• Definition: Any statement of fact made by a
party against his interest or unfavorable to the
conclusion for which he contends or is
inconsistent with the facts alleged by him.
• Types:
1) Verbal or written;
2) Express or tacit;

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 6 of 26

EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

3) JUDICIAL – One made in connection with
a judicial proceeding in which it is offered;
EXTRAJUDICIAL – Any admission other
than judicial (e.g. Rule 130, Sec 26 and
32).
• General rule: Any act/declaration/omission of
a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him. [Rule 130, Sec. 26]
Admission Confession
Merely a statement of fact Involves an
acknowledgement of
guilt/liability
Maybe express or tacit Must be express
- Flight from justice is an - The silence of an accused
admission by conduct and under custody or his failure
circumstantial evidence of to deny statements by
consciousness of guilt. another implicating him in
[US v. Sarikala] a crime cannot be
considered as a tacit
confession of his
participation in the
commission of the crime.
[People v. Alegre (1979)]
Maybe made by 3rd Can be made only by the
parties, and in certain party himself and are
cases, admissible against admissible against his co-
a party accused in some instances
Admission Self-serving testimony
Made against the interest Made in favor of the
of the person who interest of the person
admitted making the statement
Made in anticipation of
future litigation
Admissible in evidence Not admissible in evidence
1) In civil cases – An offer of compromise is not
an admission of any liability, and is not
admissible against the offeror.
2) In criminal cases – An offer of compromise by
the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
• Exception:
a) In cases involving quasi-offenses
(criminal negligence);
b) Those allowed by law to be
compromised.
• An offer to pay or the payment of medical,
hospital or other expenses occasioned by an
injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of
civil/criminal liability for the injury.
• A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an
unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser
offense, is not admissible in evidence against
the accused who made the plea/offer.
• In cases of public crimes, 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. [People vs. Godoy (1995)]
• A plea of forgiveness may be considered as
analogous to an attempt to compromise.
[People vs. De Guzman (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. [People vs. Yparriguirre (1997)]

- Admissible not only e. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA [Rule 130,

against the party who Sec. 28]
made it or his successors-
in-interest, but also
against 3rd persons.
• Definition: The rights of a party cannot be
[Viacrucis v. CA (1986)] prejudiced by an act/declaration/omission of
another. (1st branch of the res inter alios acta
rule)
SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS
• Only the admissions of a party-litigant are
• Requisites
admissible as substantive evidence. Those of
1) The statement was made extra-judicially;
non-party witnesses may be admitted for
• It does not include the party’s
impeachment purposes only.
testimony as a witness in court. [Co v.
• An admission by a 3rd-party cannot bind a
CA (1980)]
party-litigant because such 3rd-party admission
2) The statement is in favor of the declarant’s
would be res inter alios acta and therefore
interest;
hearsay.
3) The statement was made in anticipation of
• Extra-judicial statements of an accused
future litigation
implicating a co-accused may not be utilized
• Where the statement was not made in
against the latter.
anticipation of a future litigation, it is
• Exception: [People v. Raquel (1996)]
not self-serving. [Korisu v. Rizal
(1) The co-accused impliedly acquiesced in
Cement]
or adopted the confession by not
questioning its truthfulness;
ADMISSION BY SILENCE [Rule 130, Sec. 32]
(2) The accused persons voluntarily and
• An act/declaration made in the presence and
independently executed identical
within the hearing/observation of a party who
confessions without collusion and
does/says nothing when the act/declaration is
without contradiction by the others
such as naturally to call for action/comment if
present;
not true, and when proper and possible for him
(3) The accused admitted the facts after
to do so, may be given in evidence against
being apprised of the confession;
him.
(4) If they are charged as co-conspirators
• The rule does not apply if the statements
of the crime which was confessed by 1
adverse to the party were made in the course
of the accused and the confession is
of an official investigation. [US v. De la Cruz]
used only as a corroborating evidence;
(5) The confession is used as circumstantial
d. COMPROMISE [Rule 130, Sec. 27] evidence to show the probability of
participation by the co-conspirator;

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 7 of 26

EVIDENCE
(6) The confessant testified for his co-
defendant;
(7) The co-conspirator’s extra-judicial
confession is corroborated by other
evidence on record.
EXCEPTIONS TO RES INTER ALIOS ACTA
1) Partner’s/agent’s admission; [Rule 130, Sec.
29]
• Requisites:
a) The act/declaration must be within the
scope of the authority of the
partner/agent.
b) The act/declaration must have been
made during the existence of the
partnership/agency.
c) The partnership or agency must be
shown by evidence other than the act
or declaration.
• This rule applies to the act/declaration of a
joint owner, joint debtor or other person
jointly interested with the party.
Statements made after a partnership has
been dissolved do not fall within this
exception.
2) Co-conspirator’s admission; [Rule 130, Sec.
30]
• Requisites:
a) The act/declaration must relate to the
conspiracy;
b) It must have been made during the
existence of the conspiracy;
• And not long after the conspiracy
had been brought to end. [People
v. Chaw Yaw Shun (1968)]
c) The conspiracy must be shown by
evidence other than such
act/declaration.
• The existence of the conspiracy
may be inferred from the acts of
the accused. [People v. Belen
(1963)]
• Where there is no independent
evidence of the alleged conspiracy,
the extra-judicial confession of an
accused cannot be used against his
co-accused as the res inter alios
rule applies both to extra-judicial
confessions and admissions.
[People v. Alegre (1976)]
• This rule in Rule 130, Sec. 30 applies only
to extra-judicial statements, not to
testimony given on the stand. [People v.
Serrano (1959)]
3) Admission by privies. [Rule 130, Sec. 31]
• Where one derives title to property from
another, the act/declaration/omission of
the latter, while holding the title, in relation
to the property, is evidence against the
former.
• Requisites: [People v. Du]
a) There exists a relation of privity
between the party and the declarant;
• Privity in estate may have arisen by
succession, acts mortis causa or
acts inter vivos. [Alpuerto v. Perez
Pastor]
b) Admission was made by declarant as
predecessor-in-interest while holding
title to property;
c) Admission is in relation to the property.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
f. CONFESSIONS [Rule 130, Sec. 33;
Rule 115 (e); Art. 3, Sec. 17, Consti]
• Definition: A categorical acknowledgment of
guilt made by an accused in a criminal case
without any exculpatory statement or
explanation.
• If the accused admits having committed
the act in question but alleges a
justification therefore, the same is merely
an admission. [US v. Tolosa]
• The declaration of an accused acknowledging
his guilt of the offense charged, or of any
offense necessarily included therein, may be
given in evidence against him.
• No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself. [Art. 3, Sec. 17, Consti]
• 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. [People
v. Compil (1995)]
• By affixing their signatures on the boxes,
accused in effect made a tacit admission of
the crime charged. These signatures are
tantamount to an extrajudicial confession
made without the assistance of counsel,
which is not sanctioned by the Bill of
Rights. [People v. Wong Chuen Ming
(1996)]
• Any confession, including a re-enactment
without admonition of the right to silence
and to counsel, and without counsel chosen
by the accused is inadmissible in evidence.
[People v. Yip Wai Ming (1996)]
• The declaration of an accused expressly
acknowledging his guilt of the offense may
be given in evidence against him and any
person, otherwise competent to testify as a
witness who heard the confession as to the
substance of what he heard if he heard and
understood it. [People v. Maqueda (1995)]
2008 Page 8 of 26
EVIDENCE
III. CONDUCT AND CHARACTER
AS EVIDENCE
CONDUCT
• General rule: 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. (2nd branch of
res inter alios acta rule) [Rule 130, Sec. 34]
• Exception: But that evidence may be
received to prove a specific intent or
knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme,
habit, custom or usage and the like.
• Previous acts of negligence is
admissible to show knowledge or
intent. [US v. Pineda]
• An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of
money or to deliver a written instrument or
specific personal property is, if rejected without
valid cause, equivalent to the actual production
and tender of the money/instrument, or
property. [Rule 130, Sec. 34]
• It is merely an evidentiary complement to
the rule on tender of payment. [Art. 1256,
CC]
CHARACTER [Rule 130, Sec. 51; Rule 132, Sec.
14]
• General rule: Character evidence is not
admissible.
• Exception:
1) In criminal cases:
a) Accused – May prove his good
moral character which is pertinent
to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged.
b) Prosecution – May not prove the
bad moral character of the accused,
except in rebuttal.
c) Offended Party – His/her good or
bad moral character may be proved
if it tends to establish in any
reasonable degree the
im/probability of the offense
charged.
• Victim’s good/bad moral
character is not necessary in a
crime of murder where the
killing is committed through
treachery or premeditation.
[People v. Soliman (1957)]
2) In civil cases:
• Moral character is admissible only
when pertinent to the issue of
character involved in the case.
[Rule 130, Sec. 51]
• Evidence of the witness’ good
character is not admissible until
such character has been
impeached. [Rule 130, Sec. 14]
• It is admissible when it is otherwise
relevant, 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, or when it is
evidence of a circumstance
connected with the crime. [People
vs. Irang (1937)]
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
IV. HEARSAY RULE
A. TESTIMONIAL
KNOWLEDGE
• HEARSAY - Any evidence the probative value
of which is not based on the personal
knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge
of some other person not on the witness stand.
• Rationale: The party against whom such
hearsay evidence is presented is deprived of his
right and opportunity to cross-examine the
persons to whom the statements or writings
are attributed.
• General rule: A witness testify only as to
those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge.
• PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE – Those derived
from his own perception, i.e. his 5 sense
(sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste).
• Witnesses can testify only with regard to
facts of which they have personal
knowledge. Testimonial or documentary
evidence is hearsay if it is based, not on
the personal knowledge of the witness, but
on the knowledge of some other person not
on the witness stand. Consequently,
hearsay evidence -- whether objected to or
not -- has no probative value unless the
proponent can show that the evidence falls
within any of the exceptions to the hearsay
rule, as provided in the ROC. [Mallari v.
People (2004)]
• 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. Brioso (1971)]
• The testimony of a witness regarding a
statement made by another person, if
intended to establish the truth of the facts
asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay
evidence. It is otherwise if the purpose is
merely to establish the fact that the
statement was made, or the tenor of such
statement. [People v. Cusi (1965)]
• The testimony of a witness on the
confession made to him by the accused is
not hearsay. 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. [People v. Gaddi (1989)]
• Newspaper clippings or facts published in
the newspapers are hearsay and have no
evidentiary value unless substantiated by
persons with personal knowledge of said
facts. [People v. Aguel (1980)]
• 2 main requisites for evidence not to be
hearsay: [Gulam v. Sps. Santos (2006)]
1) It must be based on personal knowledge;
2) There must be opportunity for cross-
examination by the adverse party.
• The hearsay rule covers all types of evidence
(oral, documentary and object). [Valencia v.
Cabigting (1991)]
CHILD WITNESS RULE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION
[Sec. 28, AM 00-4-07-SC]
1) Hearsay testimony of a child describing any act
2008 Page 9 of 26
EVIDENCE
or attempted act of sexual abuse may now be
admitted in any criminal proceeding subject to
certain prerequisites and the adverse party’s
right to cross-examine.
2) The admissibility of such hearsay statements
shall be determined by the court in light of
specified subjective and objective
considerations which provide sufficient indicia
or reliability of the child witness.
DOCTRINE OF INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT
STATEMENTS
• It is not covered by the hearsay rule. [People v.
Cusi]
• Independent of WON the facts stated are true,
they are relevant since they are the facts in
issue or are circumstantial evidence of the facts
in issue.
• WON the statement made is true is immaterial.
What is sought to be proved is the fact that
such statement was made.
• It pertains to the tenor of statement, not truth.
B. EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY
RULE
1. DYING DECLARATION [Rule
130, Sec. 37]
• “Antemortem statement” or “statement in
articulo mortis”.
• Requisites: [People v. Macandog (2001)]
1) Declaration was made under the
consciousness of an impending death;
• The deceased should have believed
himself in extremis, at the point of
death where every hope of recovery is
extinct. [People v. Laquinon (1985)]
2) Declaration refers to cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death;
3) Declaration refers to facts the person is
competent to testify to;
4) Declaration is offered in any case wherein
his death is the subject of inquiry.
• However, the law does not require the
declarant to state explicitly a perception of the
inevitability of death. The foreboding may be
gleaned from surrounding circumstances, such
as the nature of the declarant’s injury and
conduct that would justify a conclusion that
there was consciousness of impending death.
[People v. Latayada (2004)]
• The intervening time from the making of the
declaration up to the actual death of the
declarant is immaterial as long as the
declaration was made under the consciousness
of an impending death. [US v. Mallari]
2. DECLARATION AGAINST
INTEREST [Rule 130, Sec. 38]
• Made by a person deceased, or unable to
testify, against the interest of the declarant.
• INABILITY TO TESTIFY – The person is
either dead, mentally incapacitated or
physically incompetent. Mere absence from
the jurisdiction does not make him ipso
facto unavailable. [Fuentes vs. CA (1996)]
• Subject of declaration/act: The fact asserted
was at the time it was made so far contrary to
declarant's own interest that a reasonable man
in his position would not have made the
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
declaration unless he believed it to be true.
• The declaration should be against himself or his
successors in interest and against 3rd persons.
COMPARED TO ADMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST
• ADMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST - Those
made by a party to a litigation or by one in
privity with or identified in legal interest with
such party and are admissible WON the
declarant is available as a witness.
• Declarations against interest are secondary
evidence which constitute an exception to the
hearsay rule and are admissible only when the
declarant is unavailable as a witness.
• A declaration against interest is the opposite of
a self-serving declaration.
3. PEDIGREE [Rule 130, Sec. 39]
• Definition: Relationship, family genealogy,
birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the
places where these fast occurred, and the
names of the relatives. It also embraces facts
of family history intimately connected with
pedigree.
• The act/declaration must be made by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, regarding the
pedigree of another person related to him by
birth/marriage.
• The rules do not require any specific degree
of relationship but the weight to which such
act/declaration is entitled may be affected
by the degree of relationship.
• The act/declaration is admissible if it occurred
before the controversy, and the relationship
between the 2 persons is shown by evidence
other than such act/declaration.
• The requirement that there be other proof
than the declarations of the declarant as to
the relationship does not apply where it is
sought to reach the estate of the declarant
himself and not merely to establish a right
through his declarations to the property or
some member of the family. [Tison v. CA]
• Requisites for admissibility: [Mendoza v. CA
(1991)]
1) The declarant is dead or unable to testify.
2) The pedigree must be in issue.
3) The declarant must be a relative of the
person whose pedigree is in issue.
4) The declaration must be made before the
controversy arose.
5) The relationship between the declarant and
the person whose pedigree is in question
must be shown by evidence other than
such declaration.
4. FAMILY TRADITION [Rule 130,
Sec. 40]
• The exception refers to reputations/traditions
existing in a family previous to the controversy,
in respect to the pedigree of any one of its
members. It may be received in evidence if the
witness testifying thereon be also a member of
the family, either by consanguinity or affinity.
• Documentary evidence allowed under the
exception: Entries in family bibles or other
family books, charts, engravings on rings,
family portraits and the like.
• This enumeration, by ejusdem generis, is
limited to objects which are commonly
known as "family possessions," or those
2008 Page 10 of 26
EVIDENCE
articles which represent, in effect, a
family's joint statement of its belief as to
the pedigree of a person. These have been
described as objects "openly exhibited and
well known to the family," or those "which,
if preserved in a family, may be regarded
as giving a family tradition." Other
examples of these objects which are
regarded as reflective of a family's
reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
are inscriptions on tombstones, monuments
or coffin plates. [Jison v. CA (98)]
• A person’s statement as to his date of birth and
age, as he learned of these from his parents or
relatives, is an ante litem motam declaration of
a family tradition. [Gravador v. Mamigo
(1967)]
• Such statement (as to his age) prevails
over the mere opinion of the trial judge.
[US v. Agadas (36 PHIL 246)]
• However, such statement (as to age)
cannot generally prevail over the secondary
statement of his father. [US v. Evangelista]
5. COMMON REPUTATION [Rule
130, Sec. 41]
• Admissible evidences under this exception:
1) Common reputation existing previous to
the controversy, respecting facts of public
or general interest more than 30 years old,
or respecting marriage or moral character;
• COMMON REPUTATION – The general
or substantially undivided reputation
although it need not be unanimous. It
is the definite opinion of the community
in which the fact to be proved is known
or exists.
• CHARACTER – The inherent qualities
of a person.
• REPUTATION - The opinion of a
person by others.
• Under this section, the character of a
person is permitted to be established
by his common reputation.
• The character of a place as an opium
joint may be proved by its common
reputation in the community. [US v.
Chua Chiok]
2) Monuments and inscriptions in public places
as evidence of common reputation.
6. RES GESTAE [Rule 130, Sec. 42]
• Definition: It literally means “Things done”.
• Statements admissible as part of the res
gestae:
1) Statements made by a person while a
starting occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto,
with respect to the circumstances thereof.
2) Statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue, and giving it a legal
significance.
• The rule refers to (a) spontaneous statements
in connection with a startling occurrence
relating to that fact and in effect forming a part
thereof and (b) statements accompanying an
equivocal act – verbal acts – on the theory that
they are the verbal parts of the act to be
explained.
• A dying declaration can be made only by the
victim after the attack while a statement as
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
part of the res gestae may be that of the killer
himself after or during the killing. [People v.
Reyes]
• Where the elements of both are present,
the statement may be admitted both as a
dying declaration and as part of the res
gestae. [People v. Balbas (1983)]
• If the statement was made under the influence
of a startling event and the declarant did not
have the opportunity to concoct or contrive a
story, the statement is admissible as part of
the res gestae. [People v. Berame (1976)]
• Notes taken regarding a transaction by a
person who is not a party thereto and who has
not been requested to take down such notes
are not part of the res gestae. [Borromeo v. CA
(1976)]
7. ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF
BUSINESS [Rule 130, Sec. 43;
Rule 8, Rules on Electronic
Evidence (REE)]
• The entry must have been made at or near the
time of transactions to which they refer.
• The entry should have been made by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a
position to know the facts therein stated.
• Such entry is treated as prima facie evidence, if
the person who made the entries did so in his
professional capacity or in the performance of
duty and in the ordinary or regular course of
business/duty.
• If the entrant is available as a witness, the
entries will not be admitted as an exception to
the hearsay rule but they may nevertheless be
availed of by said entrant as a memorandum to
refresh his memory while testifying on the
transactions reflected therein. [Cang Yui v.
Gardner]
• There is no overriding necessity to bring into
court all the clerks/EEs who individually made
the entries in a long account. It is sufficient
that the person who supervises their work
testify that the account was prepared under his
supervision and that the entries were regularly
entered into in the ordinary course of business.
[Yek Tong Fire & Marine Insurance v.
Gutierrez]
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AS EXCEPTION TO
HEARSAY
• A memorandum/report/record or data
compilation of
acts/events/conditions/opinions/diagnoses,
made by electronic, optical or other similar
means at or near the time of or from
transmission/supply of information by a person
with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular
course/conduct of a business activity, and such
was the regular practice to make the
memorandum/report/record or data
compilation by electronic, optical or similar
means, all of which are shown by the testimony
of the custodian or other qualified witnesses.
[Rule 8, Sec. 1, REE]
• This presumption may be overcome by
evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source
of information or the method or circumstances
of the preparation/transmission/storage
thereof. [Rule 8, Sec. 2, REE]
8. OFFICIAL RECORDS [Rule 130,
2008 Page 11 of 26
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

Sec. 44] V. OPINION RULE

• The entries must be made at or near the time
of transactions to which they refer, and by a
• General rule: The opinion of a witness is not
person deceased, or unable to testify, who was
admissible. [Rule 130, Sec. 48]
in a position to know the facts therein stated.
• Exception:
• The entrant must have personal knowledge of
1) Expert witness: On a matter requiring
the facts stated by him or such facts acquired
special knowledge/skill/experience/
by him from reports made by persons under a
training which he shown to possess.
legal duty to submit the same. [Salmon, Dexter
[Rule 130, Sec. 49]
& Co. v. Wijangco]
• There is no precise requirement as
• Such record is prima facie evidence, if the
to the mode in which
person made the entries in his professional
skill/experience shall have been
capacity or in the performance of duty and in
acquired. Scientific study and
the ordinary or regular course of business or
training are not always essential to
duty
the competency of a witness as an
• The report submitted by a police officer in the
expert. Knowledge acquired by
performance of his duties on the basis of his
doing is no less valuable than that
own personal observation of the facts reported,
acquired by study. [Dilag Co. v.
may properly be constituted as an exception.
Merced (1949)]
[Caltex v. Africa (1966)]
• Polygraph test has not as yet
• Entries in a police blotter are not conclusive
attained scientific acceptance as a
proof of the truth of such entries. [People vs.
reliable and accurate means of
Cabuang (1993)]
ascertaining truth or deception.
• Baptismal certificates or parochial records of
[People vs. Adoviso (1999)]
baptism are not official records. [Fortus v.
2) Ordinary witness: If proper basis is
Novero (1968)]
given, and regarding: [Rule 130, Sec.
50]
9. COMMERCIAL LISTS [Rule 130, a) Identity of a person about whom he
Sec. 45] has adequate knowledge;
b) Handwriting with which he has
• Evidence of statements of matters of interest to sufficient familiarity;
persons engaged in an occupation contained in c) Mental sanity of a person with
a list/register/periodical or other published whom he is sufficiently acquainted;
compilation, is admissible as tending to prove d) Impressions of the
the truth of any relevant matter so stated if emotion/behavior/condition/appear
that compilation is published for use by persons ance of a person.
engaged in that occupation and is generally
used and relied upon by them therein.

10. LEARNED TREATISES [Rule

130, Sec. 46]

• A published treatise/periodical/pamphlet on a
subject of history/law/science/art is admissible
as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated
therein, if the court takes judicial notice or a
witness expert in the subject testifies that the
writer of the statement in the
treatise/periodical/pamphlet is recognized in
his profession/calling as expert in the subject.

11. PRIOR TESTIMONY [Rule 130,

Sec. 47]

• The prior testimony must have been made by a

witness deceased or unable to testify, in a
former case/proceeding (judicial or
administrative) involving the same parties and
subject matter.
• UNABLE TO TESTIFY – An inability
proceeding from a grave cause almost
amounting to death as when the witness is
old and has lost the power of speech. [Tan
v. CA (1967)]
• The prior testimony may be given in evidence
against the adverse party who had the
opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 12 of 26

EVIDENCE
VI. WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
AND BURDEN OF PROOF
A. JUDICIAL NOTICE
WHEN MANDATORY [Rule 129, Sec. 1]
1) Existence and territorial extent of states;
2) Their political history;
3) Their forms of government;
4) Their symbols of nationality;
5) The law of nations;
6) Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
their seals;
7) Political constitution and history of the
Philippines;
8) Official acts of the legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines
• Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign
laws. [Yao-Kee v. Sy-Gonzales (1988)]
• General rule: Courts are not mandated to
take judicial notice of municipal ordinances.
[City of Manila v. Garcia (1967)]
• Exception: If the charter of the
concerned city provides for such judicial
notice.
• General rule: Courts cannot take judicial
notice of the contents/records of other
cases even if both cases may have been
tried or are pending before the same judge.
[Prieto v. Arroyo (1965)]
• Exception: The case clearly referred to
or the original or part of the records of
the case are actually withdrawn from
the archives of that case and admitted
as part of the record of the case
pending when: [Tabuena v. CA (1991)]
a) There is no objection from adverse
party even with his knowledge
thereof;
b) It is at the request or with the
consent of the parties.
9) Laws of nature;
10) Measure of time;
11) Geographical divisions.
WHEN DISCRETIONARY [Rule 129, Sec. 2]
1) Matters of public knowledge;
2) Matters capable of unquestionable
demonstration;
3) Matters which ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions.
WHEN HEARING IS NECESSARY [Rule 129,
Sec. 3]
1) During the trial: The court may announce its
intention to take judicial notice of any matter
and allow the parties to be heard thereon on its
own initiative or on request of a party.
2) After the trial and before judgment or on
appeal: The court may announce its intention
to take judicial notice of any matter that is
decisive of a material issue in the case and
allow the parties to be heard thereon on its
own initiative or on request of a party.
B. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
• Definition: Admissions, verbal or written,
made by the party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case. It requires no
proof. [Rule 129, Sec. 4]
• Judicial admission may be contradicted only by
showing that:
a) It was made through palpable mistake;
b) No such admission was made.
• An original complaint, after being amended,
loses its character as a judicial admission,
which would have required no proof. It
becomes merely an extra-judicial admission
requiring a formal offer in order to be
admissible. [Torres v. CA (1984)]
C. BURDEN OF PROOF
• Definition: Duty of a party to present evidence
on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim/defense by the amount required by law.
[Rule 131, Sec. 1]
• The test for determining where the burden of
proof lies is to ask which party to an action/suit
will fail if he offers no evidence competent to
show the facts averred as the basis for the
relief he seeks to obtain, and based on the
result of an inquiry, which party would be
successful if he offers no evidence. [Republic v.
Vda. De Neri (2004)]
• General rule: All facts in issue and relevant
facts must be proven by evidence.
• Exception: [Republic v. Vda. De Neri
(2004)]
1) Allegations contained in the
complaint/answer immaterial to the
issues;
2) Facts which are admitted or which are
not denied in the answer, provided they
have been sufficiently alleged;
3) Those which are the subject of an
agreed statement of facts between the
parties, as well as those admitted by
the party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case;
4) Facts which are the subject of judicial
notice;
5) Facts which are legally presumed;
6) Facts peculiarly within the knowledge of
the opposite party.
D. PRESUMPTIONS
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS [Rule 131,
Sec. 2]
1) Whenever a party by his own
declaration/act/omission, has led another to
believe a particular thing to be true and act
upon such belief, he cannot in any litigation
arising out of such declaration/act/omission be
permitted to falsify it.
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.
DISPUTABLE [Rule 131, Sec. 3]
1) Person is innocent of a crime or wrong;
2) Unlawful act is done with an unlawful intent;
3) Person intends the ordinary consequences of
his voluntary act;
2008 Page 13 of 26
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

4) Person takes ordinary care of his concerns; 3. Person who has

5) Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse been in danger of
if produced; death under
other
• This presumption will not apply if the
circumstances
evidence is at the disposal of both defense
and whose
and the prosecution. [People v. Padiernos existence has not
(1976)] been known for 4
6) Money paid by one to another was due to the years
latter; Person whose Remarriage
7) Thing delivered by one to another belonged to spouse has been
the latter; absent for 4 - Before marrying
8) Obligation delivered up to the debtor has been consecutive years again, the spouse
4
and who has a well- present must
paid;
founded belief that institute summary
9) Prior rents or installments had been paid when the absent spouse is proceedings as
a receipt for the later ones is produced; already dead provided in the
10) A person found in possession of a thing taken Missing spouse has Family Code and in
in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the been in danger of the rules for
taker and doer of the whole act; otherwise, death under the declaration of
that things which a person possesses or extra-ordinary presumptive death
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by circumstances above of the absentee,
2 without prejudice to
him;
the effect of
11) Person in possession of an order on himself for reappearance of the
the payment of the money or the delivery of absent spouse)
anything has paid the money or delivered the
thing accordingly;
12) Person acting in public office was regularly 24) Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the
appointed or elected to it; thing acquiesced in was conformable to the
13) Official duty has been regularly performed; law/fact;
14) A court or judge acting as such, whether in the 25) Things have happened according to the
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature
lawful exercise of jurisdiction; habits of life;
15) All the matters within an issue raised in a case 26) Persons acting as copartners have entered into
were laid before the court and passed upon by a contract of co-partnership;
it; all matters within an issue raised in a 27) A man and woman deporting themselves as
dispute submitted for arbitration were laid husband and wife have entered into a lawful
before arbitrators and passed upon by them; contract of marriage;
16) Private transactions have been fair and regular;
17) Ordinary course of business has been followed; Situation Presumption
18) There was a sufficient consideration for a A man and a woman are Property acquired were
contract; capacitated to marry each obtained by their joint
19) Negotiable instrument was given or indorsed other and live exclusively efforts/work/industry
for a sufficient consideration; with each other as
husband and wife without
20) An indorsement of negotiable instrument was
the benefit of marriage or
made before the instrument was overdue and under void marriage
at the place where the instrument is dated; Cohabitation by a man Such contributions and
21) A writing is truly dated; and a woman who are not their corresponding
22) Letter duly directed and mailed was received in capacitated to marry each shares including joint
the regular course of the mail; other and who have deposits of money and
23) Presumptions concerning absence: acquired property through evidences of credit are
their actual joint equal
No. of contribution of money,
years of Instances Purpose property or industry
absence
Absence without it All purposes except 28) Presumptions governing children of women
7 being known WON he for opening his who contracted another marriage within 300
is alive succession days after termination of her former marriage
10 Opening his (in the absence of proof to the contrary):
Absence after age of Succession
5
75 y/o When child was born Presumption
1. Person on board All purposes Before 180 days after the Considered to have been
a vessel lost including opening solemnization of the conceived during the
during a sea of his succession subsequent marriage former marriage, provided
voyage, or an it be born within 300 days
aircraft which is after the termination of
missing, who has the former marriage
not been heard of After 180 days following Considered to have been
for 4 years since the celebration of the conceived during the
4 the loss of the subsequent marriage subsequent marriage,
vessel or aircraft even though it be born
2. Member of the within the 300 days after
armed forces who the termination of the
took part in former marriage.
armed hostilities,
and has been
missing for 4 29) A thing once proved to exist continues as long
years as is usual with things of the nature;
30) The law has been obeyed;

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 14 of 26

EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

31) A printed/published book, purporting to be VII. PRESENTATION OF

printed/published by public authority, was so
printed/published; EVIDENCE
32) A printed/published book, purporting to contain
reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the
country where the book is published, contains
correct reports of such cases;
A. EXAMINATION OF
33) A trustee or other person whose duty it was to WITNESS
convey real property to a particular person has
actually conveyed it to him when such MANNER OF EXAMINATION [Rule 132, Sec.
presumption is necessary to perfect the title of
1]
such person or his successor in interest;
• In open court;
34) Presumptions regarding survivorship:
• Under oath/affirmation.
(Applicable for all purposes except succession)

When 2 persons perish in the same calamity, and it is MODE OF ANSWERING

not shown who died first, and there are no particular
circumstances from which it can be inferred, the • General rule: Oral answers.
survivorship is determined from the probabilities • Exception:
resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes:
1) Witness is incapacitated to speak;
Situation Person presumed to
have survived
2) Question calls for a different mode of
Both < 15 y/o The older answer.
Both > 60 y/o The younger • The testimony of the witness should be elicited
One < 15 y/o, The one <15 by questions of counsel. But the court may
the other > 60 y/o itself propound questions either on the direct or
Both > 15 and < 60 y/o, The male cross examination of the witness. [People v.
Of different sexes Moreno (1988)]
Both > 15 and <60 y/o, The older
Of the same sex EXCEPTIONS IN GENERAL
One < 15 or > 60 y/o, The one between those 1) Testimony of witness in civil cases may be
and the other between ages
given by depositions. [Rule 23 and 24]
those ages
2) Depositions or conditional examinations are
allowed in criminal cases. [Rule 119 and 123]
35) As between 2 or more persons called to
• Mere presentation of the affidavits of
succeed each other: If there is a doubt as to
prosecution witnesses subject to cross-
which of them died first, whoever alleges the
examination is not allowed by the ROC.
death of one prior to the other, shall prove the
[People v. Estenzo (1976)]
same. In the absence of proof, they shall be
3) Affidavits are allowed in cases covered by Rule
considered to have died at the same time.
on Summary Procedure
• The admissibility of evidence should not be
confused with its probative
value. Admissibility refers to the question
of whether certain pieces of evidence are to
be considered at all, while probative value
refers to the question of whether the
admitted evidence proves an issue. Thus, a
particular item of evidence may be
admissible, but its evidentiary weight
depends on judicial evaluation within the
guidelines provided by the rules of evidence
[Heirs of Sabanpan v. Comorposa, (2003)]
• Hence, although affidavits of witnesses are
allowed/admissible under the Rule on
Summary Procedure, these may not have
any probative value.

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS [Rule 132, Sec. 2]

• The entire proceedings of a trial/hearing should

be recorded, including:
• The questions propounded to a witness and
his answer thereto;
• Statements made by the judge or any of
the parties/counsels/witnesses with
reference to the case.
• Means of recording:
1) By shorthand;
2) By stenotype;
3) Other means found suitable by the court.

TRANSCRIPT
• TSN shall be made by the official stenographer/
stenotypist/recorder. He shall certify it as
correct, and it shall be deemed prima facie a

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 15 of 26

EVIDENCE
correct statement of the proceedings.
• That a judge did not hear a case does not
necessarily render him less competent in
assessing the credibility of witnesses. He can
rely on the TSN of their testimony and calibrate
them in accordance with their conformity to
common experience, knowledge and
observation of ordinary men. Such reliance
does not violate substantive and procedural
due process of law. [People v. Cadley (2004)]
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS [Rule 132, Sec.
3]
• Obligation of a witness: To answer questions,
although his answer may tend to establish a
claim against him.
• Rights of a witness:
1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper,
or insulting questions, and from harsh or
insulting demeanor;
2) Not to be detained longer than the interests
of justice require;
3) Not to be examined except only as to
matters pertinent to the issue;
4) Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense,
unless otherwise provided by law;
• “Unless provided by law” refers to
immunity statutes such as those which
the witness is granted immunity from
criminal prosecution for offenses
admitted (e.g. Sec. 8, RA 1379).
5) Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade his reputation, unless it to be the
very fact at issue or to a fact from which
the fact in issue would be presumed. But a
witness must answer to the fact of his
previous final conviction for an offense.
ORDER OF EXAMINATION [Rule 132, Sec. 4]
DIRECT EXAMINATION
[Rule 132, Sec. 5]
• Examination-in-chief of a witness by the
party presenting him, on the facts
relevant to the issue.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
[Rule 132, Sec. 6]
• When conducted: Upon the termination
of the direct examination.
• Matters covered: Witness may be cross-
examined by the adverse party:
1) As to any matter stated in the
direct examination, or connected
therewith, with sufficient fullness
and freedom to test his accuracy
and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse;
2) To elicit all important facts bearing
upon the issue.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
[Rule 132, Sec. 7]
• When conducted: After the cross-
examination of the witness has been
concluded.
• Why conducted: To explain or
supplement his answers given during
the cross-examination.
• On re-direct-examination, the court
in its discretion may allow questions
on matters not dealt with during the
cross-examination.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
[Rule 132, Sec. 8]
• When conducted: Upon the conclusion of
the re-direct examination.
• Matters covered: The adverse party may
re-cross-examine the witness on matters
stated in his re-direct examination, and
also on such other matters as may be
allowed by the court in its discretion.
RECALLING WITNESSES [Rule 132, Sec. 9]
• After both sides have concluded the
examination of a witness, he cannot be recalled
without leave of court. The court will grant or
withhold leave in its discretion as the interests
of justice may require.
• Examples of grounds for recalling a witness:
[People v. Rivera (1991)]
• Particularly identified material points were
not covered in the cross-examination;
• Particularly described vital documents were
not presented to the witness;
• The cross-examination was conducted in so
inept a manner as to result in a virtual
absence thereof.
LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS
[Rule 132, Sec. 10]
• MISLEADING QUESTIONS – Questions that
assume as true a fact not yet testified to by the
witness, or contrary to that which he has
previously stated. They are not allowed.
• LEADING QUESTIONS – Questions that
suggest to the witness the answer which the
examining party desires.
• General rule: Leading questions are not
allowed.
• Exception:
1) On cross examination;
2) On preliminary matters;
3) When there is a difficulty is getting
direct and intelligible answers from a
witness who is ignorant, or a child of
2008 Page 16 of 26
EVIDENCE
tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a
deaf-mute;
• It is usual and proper for the court
to permit leading questions in
conducting the examination of a
witness who is immature; aged and
infirm; in bad physical condition;
uneducated; ignorant of, or
unaccustomed to, court
proceedings; inexperienced;
unsophisticated; feeble-minded; of
sluggish mental equipment;
confused and agitated; terrified;
timid or embarrassed while on the
stand; lacking in comprehension of
questions asked or slow to
understand; deaf and dumb; or
unable to speak or understand the
English language or only
imperfectly familiar therewith.
[People v. Dela Cruz (2002)]
4) On an unwilling or hostile witness;
• A witness may be considered
hostile only when declared by the
court, upon adequate showing of
his: [Rule 132, Sec. 12]
a) Adverse interest;
b) Unjustified reluctance to
testify;
c) His having misled the party into
calling him to the witness
stand.
5) On a witness who is an adverse party
or an officer/director or managing
agent of a public/private corporation or
of a partnership/association which is an
adverse party.
IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES
IMPEACHMENT OF ADVERSE PARTY’S WITNESS
[Rule 132, Sec. 11]
• How done:
1) By contradictory evidence;
2) By evidence that his general reputation for
truth, honesty or integrity is bad;
3) By evidence that he has made at other
times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony.
• Evidence of particular wrongful acts is not
allowed except that it may be shown by the
examination of the witness, or the record of the
judgment, that he has been convicted of an
offense.
IMPEACHMENT OF OWN WITNESS [Rule 132, Sec.
12]
• General rule: The party producing a witness is
not allowed to impeach the latter’s credibility.
• Exception:
1) Unwilling or hostile witness.
• 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, except by evidence
of bad character.
• He may also be impeached and
cross-examined by the adverse
party, but such cross-examination
must only be on the subject matter
of his examination-in-chief.
2) Witness is an adverse party or an
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
officer/director or managing agent of a
public/private corporation or of a
partnership/association which is an
adverse party.
IMPEACHMENT BY PRIOR INCONSISTENT
STATEMENTS [Rule 132, Sec. 13]
• Requirements:
1) The statements must be related to him,
with the circumstances of the times and
places and the persons present;
2) He must be asked whether he made such
statements;
3) If so, be allowed to explain them.
• The statements of a witness prior to her
present testimony cannot serve as basis for
impeaching her credibility, unless: [People v.
Castillano (2003)]
a) Her attention was directed to the
inconsistencies/discrepancies;
b) She was given an opportunity to explain
said inconsistencies.
• Without such opportunity to explain,
the impeachment is incomplete.
[People v. Relucio, 1978]
• LAYING THE PREDICATE – If the statements
be in writing, they must be shown to the
witness before any question is put to him
concerning them.
• This rule does not apply where the previous
statements of a witness are offered as evidence
of an admission, and not merely to impeach
him. [Ysmael v. Hashim]
WAIVER OF DEFECT IN IMPEACHMENT
• Defect is deemed waived if no objection on
that ground is raised when the document
involved is offered for admission. [People v.
Molo (1979)]
EXCLUSION AND SEPARATION OF
WITNESSES [Rule 132, Sec. 15]
• The judge may exclude from the court any
witness who is not under examination at that
time so that he may not hear the testimony of
other witnesses. The judge may also have the
witnesses separated and prevented from
conversing with each other until all have been
examined.
• If a witness remains present in the hearing
despite the court’s order that all other
witnesses leave the court room, the discretion
to admit/reject the testimony of such witness
will lie within the court’s discretion. [People v.
Sandal]
• It is within the power of the judge to order or
to refuse to order the exclusion of a witness
inside a court room. [People v. Lua Chu]
REFRESHING THE RECOLLECTION OF
WITNESSES [Rule 132, Sec. 16]
REVIVAL OF PRESENT MEMORY
• A witness may be allowed to refresh his
memory respecting a fact, by anything
written/recorded by himself or under his
direction at the time when the fact occurred, or
immediately thereafter, or at any other time
when the fact was fresh in his memory and
knew that the same was correctly
written/recorded.
• But the writing/record must be produced and
2008 Page 17 of 26
EVIDENCE
may be inspected by the adverse party, who
may cross-examine the witness upon it, and
may read it in evidence.
• This provision applies only when it is shown
beforehand that there is need to refresh the
memory of the witness. [Borromeo v. CA
(1976)]
• Where the witness has testified independently
of or after his testimony has been refreshed by
a memorandum of the events in dispute, such
memorandum is not admissible as
corroborative evidence. It is self-evident that a
witness may not be corroborated by any
written statement prepared wholly by him. He
cannot be more credible just because he
support his open-court declaration with written
statements of the same facts even if he did
prepare them during the occasion in dispute,
unless the proper predicate of his failing
memory is priorly laid down. What is more,
even where this requirement has been
satisfied, the express injunction of the rule
itself is that such evidence must be received
with caution, if only because it is not very
difficult to conceive and fabricate evidence of
this nature. This is doubly true when the
witness stands to gain materially or otherwise
from the admission of such evidence.
[Borromeo v. CA (1976)]
PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED
• A witness may testify from such writing or
record (as in the case in revival of present
memory) though he retain no recollection of
the particular facts, if he is able to swear that
the writing/record correctly stated the
transaction when made; but such evidence
must be received with caution.
CONSEQUENCE OF GIVING IN EVIDENCE A
PART OF AN ACT/DECLARATION/
CONVERSATION/WRITING/RECORD [Rule
132, Sec.17]
• The whole of the same subject may be inquired
into by the other, and when a detached act,
declaration, conversation, writing or record is
given in evidence, any other act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence.
B. AUTHENTICATION AND
PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
1. PUBLIC DOCUMENTS [Rule 132,
Sec. 19]
• Public documents generally include notarial
documents and are admissible in evidence
without the necessity of preliminary proof as to
its authenticity and due execution. [Antillon v.
Barcellon]
1) Written official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and
public officers, whether of the Philippines or
of a foreign country.
2) Records of official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and
public officers, whether of the Philippines or
of a foreign country.
HOW TO PROVE PUBLIC RECORDS [Rule 132, Sec.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
24]
1) By an official publication thereof;
2) By a copy attested by the officer having the
legal custody of the record, or by his deputy,
and accompanied:
• If the record is not kept in the Philippines,
with a certificate that such officer has the
custody.
• If the record is in a foreign country, the
certificate may be made by a secretary of
the embassy/legation, consul-general,
consul, vice-consul, consular agent or any
officer in the foreign service of the
Philippines stationed in the foreign country
in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
• Translations of foreign judgments must be
made by an official court interpreter of the
Philippines or foreign governments or by a
competent and accurate translator. [Pacific Asia
Shipping v. NLRC, (1988)]
HOW TO PROVE NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS (EXCEPT
LAST WILLS AND TESTAMENTS) [Rule 132, Sec.
30]
• The document may be presented in evidence
without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of
the execution of the instrument or document
involved.
• Such notarized documents are evidence, even
against 3rd persons, of the facts which gave
rise to their execution and of the date of
execution. [Rule 132, Sec. 23]
HOW TO PROVE PUBLIC RECORDS (KEPT IN THE
PHILIPPINES) OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED
BY LAW TO BE ENTERED THEREIN [Rule 132, Sec.
27]
• By the original record, or a copy thereof,
attested by the legal custodian of the record,
with an appropriate certificate that such officer
has the custody.
• Such records are evidence, even against 3rd
persons, of the facts which gave rise to their
execution and of the date of execution. [Rule
132, Sec. 23]
• Only baptismal certificates issued by the priests
during the Spanish regime are considered
public documents. [Adriano v. De Jesus]
• While the birth certificate is primary
evidence of a victim’s age in a case of
statutory rape, in the absence of such
evidence, the victim’s minority may be
proved by other documentary evidence
such as her baptismal certificate or other
authentic records. [People v. Llandelar
(2001)]
CONTENTS OF ATTESTATION [Rule 132, Sec. 25]
• The attestation must state that the copy is a
correct copy of the original or a specific part
thereof, as the case may be. The attestation
must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a
court having a seal, under the seal of such
court.
• A mere copy of the foreign public document,
without the attestation and the certificate, is
not admissible in evidence to prove foreign law.
[Wildvalley Shipping v. CA (2000)]
IRREMOVABILITY OF RECORD [Rule 132, Sec. 26]
2008 Page 18 of 26
EVIDENCE
• Any public record, an official copy of which is
admissible in evidence, must not be removed
from the office in which it is kept, except upon
order of a court where the inspection of the
record is essential to the just determination of
a pending case.
PROBATIVE VALUE [Rule 132, Sec. 23]
• Documents consisting of entries in public
records made in the performance of duty by a
public officer are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated.
PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD [Rule 132, Sec. 28]
• A written statement signed by an officer having
the custody of an official record or by his
deputy that after diligent search, no record or
entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in
the records of his office, accompanied by a
certificate that such officer has the custody, is
admissible to prove that the records of his
office contain no such record or entry.
2. PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
HOW TO PROVE IF DOCUMENT IS OFFERED AS
AUTHENTIC [Rule 132, Sec. 20]
• Its due execution and authenticity must be
proved either:
1) By anyone who saw the document
executed/written;
2) By evidence of the genuineness of the
signature/handwriting of the maker.
• Any other private document need only be
identified as that which it is claimed to be.
• AUTHENTIC DOCUMENT RULE – If all the
following requisites have been met, no other
evidence of its authenticity is required: [Rule
132, Sec. 21]
1) The private document is more than 30
years old;
2) It is produced from a custody in which it
would naturally be found if genuine;
3) It is unblemished by any alterations or
circumstances of suspicion.
PROVING GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING [Rule
132, Sec. 22]
1) It may be proved by any witness who believes
it to be the handwriting of such person
because:
a) He has seen the person write;
b) He has seen writing purporting to be his
upon which the witness has acted or been
charged, and has thus acquired knowledge
of the handwriting of such person.
• This constitutes an exception to the opinion
rule. [Rule 130, Sec. 48 and 50]
2) Evidence respecting the handwriting may also
be given by a comparison made by the witness
or the court, with writings admitted or treated
as genuine by the party against whom the
evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to
the satisfaction of the judge.
• Rule 132, Sec. 22 merely enumerates the
methods of proving handwriting, but does not
give preference or priority to a particular
method. [Lopez v. CA (1978)]
• Expert evidence may also be admitted to prove
the genuineness of the handwriting. [Rule 130,
Sec. 49]
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
HOW TO PROVE IF DOCUMENT IS OFFERED AS
AUTHENTIC [Rule 132, Sec. 20]
• The document need only be identified as that
which it is claimed to be.
3. IMPEACHMENT OF JUDICIAL
RECORD [Rule 132, Sec. 29]
• Impeachment is done using evidence of:
1) Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
officer;
2) Collusion between the parties;
3) Fraud in the party offering the record, in
respect to the proceedings.
4. ALTERATIONS [Rule 132, Sec.
31]
• The party producing a document as genuine,
which has been altered and appears to have
been altered after its execution, in a part
material to the question in dispute, must
account for the alteration. Failure to do so
would result in the inadmissibility of evidence.
• Such party may show that the alteration was
made:
1) By another;
2) Without his concurrence;
3) With the consent of the parties affected by
it;
4) Properly or innocently made;
5) Without changing the meaning or language
of the instrument.
5. SEAL [Rule 132, Sec. 32]
• There shall be no difference between sealed
and unsealed private documents insofar as
their admissibility as evidence is concerned.
6. DOCUMENTS WRITTEN IN AN
UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE [Rule
132, Sec. 33]
• These documents are not admissible unless
accompanied by a translation into English or
Filipino.
• Parties or their attorneys are directed to have
the translation prepared before trial.
C. OFFER AND OBJECTION
1. OFFER OF EVIDENCE [Rule
132, Sec. 34]
• Purpose: For evidence to be considered by the
court.
• In making the offer, the purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified, because
such evidence may be admissible for several
purposes under the doctrine of multiple
admissibility.
• The rule 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. [Vda.
De Orate v. CA (1995)]
WHEN TO MAKE OFFER [Rule 132, Sec. 35]
Kind of evidence When to offer
2008 Page 19 of 26
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

Testimonial At the time the witness is called the adverse party had the opportunity to voice
to testify fully its objection and such objection is found to
Documentary and After the presentation of a party’s be meritorious.
Object testimonial evidence • The court may also, upon motion, order the
Offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to
striking out of answers, which are incompetent,
be done in writing.
irrelevant or otherwise improper.
• Absence of an offer is a defect which is waived
when a party fails to object when the ground 4. TENDER OF EXCLUDED
became reasonably apparent, as when the EVIDENCE [Rule 132, Sec. 40]
witness is called to testify without any prior
offer. [Catuira v. CA (1994)] Kind of evidence How to tender the evidence
• The defect caused by the absence of formal Documentary Offeror may have the same
offer of exhibits can be cured by the attached or made part of the
identification of the exhibits by testimony duly record
recorded and the incorporation of the said Testimonial Offeror may state for the record
the name and other personal
exhibits in the records of the case. [People v.
circumstances of the witness
Mate (1981)] and the substance of the
proposed testimony
2. OBJECTIONS [Rule 132, Sec. 36]
• Documents marked as exhibits during the
What to object to When to object hearing but which were not formally offered in
Testimonial evidence Immediately after offer is evidence cannot be considered as evidence nor
made shall they have evidentiary value. [Vda. De
Question propounded in As soon as the grounds Flores v. WCC (1977)]
the course of oral become reasonably
examination apparent
Identification of Formal offer of
Offer done in writing Within 3 days after notice
documentary evidence exhibit
of the offer, unless a
• Done in the course of the • Done only when
different period is allowed
trial and is accompanied the party rests
by the court
by the marking of the his/her case
The grounds for objection must be specified in any
evidence
case.
• That a document has
been identified does not
WHEN REPETITION OF OBJECTION IS mean that it will be
UNNECESSARY [Rule 132, Sec. 37] offered
• When it becomes reasonably apparent in the [Interpacific Transit v. Aviles (1990)]
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, whether such objection was sustained or
overruled.
• It shall be sufficient for the adverse party to
record his continuing objection to such class of
questions.
• A court may, motu proprio, treat the objectin
as a continuing one. [Keller v. Ellerman &
Bucknall Steamship]

RULING ON THE OBJECTION [Rule 132, Sec. 38]

• It should be given immediately after the
objection is made, unless the court desires to
take a reasonable time to inform itself on the
question presented. 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.
• The reason for sustaining or overruling an
objection need not be stated. However, if the
objection is based on two or more grounds, a
ruling sustaining the objection on one or some
of them must specify the ground/s relied upon.
• Reservation of a ruling by the court on an
objection to the admissibility of evidence,
without subsequently excluding the same,
amounts to a denial of an objection. [People v.
Tavera]

3. MOTION TO STRIKE [Rule 132,

Sec. 39]

• The court may sustain an objection and order

the answer given to be stricken off the record
should a witness answer the question before

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 20 of 26

EVIDENCE
VIII. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY
OF EVIDENCE (REQUIRED
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE)
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE (CIVIL
CASES) [Rule 133, Sec. 1]
• Definition: The evidence adduced by one side
is, as a whole, superior to or has greater
weight than that of the other. Where the
evidence presented by one side is insufficient
to ascertain the claim, there is no
preponderance of evidence. [Habagat Grill v.
DMC Urban (2005)]
• In determining preponderance, the court may
consider:
1) All the facts and circumstances of the case;
2) The witnesses’ manner of testifying;
3) Their intelligence;
4) Their means and opportunity of knowing
the facts to which they testify;
5) The im/probability of their testimony;
6) Their interest or want of interest;
7) Personal credibility so far as the same may
legitimately appear upon the trial;
8) Number of witnesses (although
preponderance is not necessarily equated
with the number of witnesses).
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
(CRIMINAL CASES) [Rule 133, Sec. 2]
• Definition: That degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. It
does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding the possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is
required – that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
• General rule: Findings of the judge who tried
the case and heard the witnesses are not to be
disturbed on appeal, unless there are
substantial facts and circumstances which have
been overlooked and which, if properly
considered, might affect the result. [People v.
Cabrera (1990)]
• Exception: The rule does not apply when
the issue revolved on the identification of
the accused or credibility of witness and
one judge heard the testimony and a
different judge penned the decision.
[People v. Escalante (1984); People v. CA
(2000)]
• Rationale: The latter judge is not in a
better position than the appellate
courts to make the determination.
• The number of witnesses should not in and by
itself determine the weight of evidence.
However, the numerical factor may be
considered in case of conflicting testimonies.
[Caluna v. Vicente (1951)]
• The testimony of the offended party is not
essential to convict an accused if there are
already other evidence to prove guilt. [People
v. Juliada].
• Inconsistencies/contradictions on details do not
materially impair the credibility of such witness,
but on the contrary are indications of veracity
rather than prevarication. [People v. Vinas
(1968)]
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
• The doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
is not absolute. The court may accept or reject
portions of the witness’ testimony depending
on the inherent credibility thereof or the
corroborative evidence in the case. [People v.
Baao (1986)]
• In criminal cases in which the quantum of
evidence required is greater than in civil cases,
the testimony of only one witness - if credible,
straightforward and worthy of belief - is
sufficient to convict. Under Rule 133, Sec. 1,
among the facts and circumstances to be
considered by the court in determining which of
the presented evidence has superior weight is
the witnesses’ means and opportunity to know
the facts to which they testify. [Habagat Grill v.
DMC Urban (2005)]
• Insofar as the civil aspect of the case is
concerned, the prosecution or the private
complainant is burdened to adduce
preponderance of evidence or superior weight
of evidence. Although the evidence adduced by
the plaintiff is stronger than that presented by
the defendant, he is not entitled to a judgment
if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his
cause of action. The plaintiff must rely on the
strength of his own evidence and not upon the
weakness of that of the defendants’. [Quinto v.
Andres (2005)]
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
(ADMINISTRATIVE CASES) [Rule 133, Sec. 5]
• Definition: The amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS [Rule 133,
Sec. 3]
• General rule: An extra-judicial confession
made by an accused, is not a sufficient ground
for conviction.
• Exception: When corroborated by
evidence of the actual commission of a
particular crime (corpus delicti).
CORPUS DELICTI
• Corpus delicti is not synonymous with the
whole charge so as to require that all the
elements of the crime be established
independently of the extra-judicial confession.
[People v. Comendador (1980)]
• Elements:
1) The existence of a certain act or result
forming the basis of the criminal charge;
2) The existence of a criminal agency as the
cause of the act or result.
• In murder, the fact of death is the corpus
delicti. [People v. Garcia]
• Where there is doubt as to the identity of a
cadaver, in the absence of any other evidence,
there is no corpus delicti. [People v. Mutuc
(1984)]
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE [Rule 133, Sec.
4]
• Requisites for circumstantial evidence to be
sufficient for conviction:
1) There is more than 1 circumstance;
2) The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven;
2008 Page 21 of 26
EVIDENCE
3) The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
• Under the RPC, one cannot be convicted of
treason by means of circumstantial evidence.
[Art. 114, RPC]
WHEN COURT MAY STOP INTRODUCTION
OF FURTHER TESTIMONY [Rule 133, Sec. 6]
• 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. This power
should be exercised with caution.
DISPOSING OF MOTIONS BASED ON
FACTS NOT APPEARING ON RECORD [Rule
133, Sec. 7]
• The Court may hear the matter on affidavits or
depositions presented by the respective parties
but the court may direct that the matter be
heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or
depositions.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
IX. RULES ON ELECTRONIC
EVIDENCE (REE)
SCOPE
• Unless otherwise provided herein, REE shall
apply whenever an electronic document or
electronic data message is offered or used in
evidence. [Rule 1, Sec. 1, REE]
• Cases covered: [Rule 1, Sec. 2, REE]
1) All civil actions and proceedings;
2) Quasi-judicial;
3) Administrative cases.
DEFINITION
• ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT – Information or
the representation of
information/data/figures/symbols or other
modes of written expression described or
however represented, by which a right is
established or an obligation extinguished, or by
which a fact may be proved and affirmed,
which is received/recorded/transmitted/stored/
processed/retrieved/produced electronically. It
includes digitally signed documents and any
print out or output, readable by sight or other
means, which accurately reflects the electronic
data message or electronic document. [Rule 2,
Sec. 1(h), REE]
• ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE – Information
generated, sent, received or stored by
electronic, optical or similar means. [Rule 2,
Sec. 1(g), REE]
• The two terms may be used interchangeably
under the REE.
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE [Rule 2, Sec. 1(j),
REE]
• Definition: Any distinctive mark, characteristic
and/or sound in electronic form, representing
the identity of a person and attached to or
logically associated with the electronic data
message or electronic document or any
methodology/procedure employed/adopted by
a person and executed/adopted by such person
with the intention of authenticating, signing or
approving an electronic data message or
electronic document.
• It includes DIGITAL SIGNATURES - 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: [Rule 2, Sec. 1(e), REE]
1) WON the transformation was created using
the private key that corresponds to the
signer’s public key;
2) WON the initial electronic document had
been altered after the transformation was
made.
• DIGITALLY SIGNED - An electronic
document or electronic data message
bearing a digital signature verified by the
public key listed in a certificate. [Rule 2,
Sec. 1(f), REE]
• It is admissible in evidence as the functional
equivalent of the signature of a person on a
2008 Page 22 of 26
EVIDENCE
written document. [Rule 6, Sec. 1, REE]
AUTHENTICATION OF E-SIGNATURES [Rule 6, Sec.
2, REE]
1) By evidence that a method or process was
utilized to establish a digital signature and
verify the same;
2) By any other means provided by law;
3) By any other means satisfactory to the judge
as establishing the genuineness of the
electronic signature.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO E-
SIGNATURES [Rule 6, Sec. 3, REE]
1) The electronic signature is that of the person to
whom it correlates;
2) 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;
3) The methods or processes utilized to affix or
verify the electronic signature operated without
error or fault.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO
DIGITAL SIGNATURES [Rule 6, Sec. 4, REE]
1) The information contained in a certificate is
correct;
2) The digital signature was created during the
operational period of a certificate;
3) No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or
revocable;
4) The message associated with a digital signature
has not been altered from the time it was
signed;
5) A certificate had been issued by the
certification authority indicated therein.
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT [Rule 2, Sec. 1(h),
REE]
• It is the functional equivalent of paper-based
documents. [Rule 3, Sec. 1, REE]
• It is admissible in evidence if it complies with
the rules on admissibility prescribed by the
ROC and related laws and is authenticated in
the manner prescribed by the REE. [Rule 3,
Sec. 2, REE]
• The confidential character of a privileged
communication is not lost solely on the ground
that it is in the form of an electronic document.
[Rule 3, Sec. 3, REE]
BEST EVIDENCE RULE [Rule 4, Sec. 1, REE]
• An electronic document shall be regarded as
the equivalent of an original document under
the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or
output readable by sight or other means,
shown to reflect the data accurately.
ORIGINALS AND COPIES [Rule 4, Sec. 2, REE]
• Copies/duplicates regarded as originals:
1) When a document is in 2 or more copies
executed at or about the same time with
identical contents;
2) Counterparts produced by the same
impression as the original, or from the
same matrix, or by mechanical/electronic
re-recording, or by chemical reproduction,
or by other equivalent techniques that
accurately reproduces the original.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
• Copies/duplicates not admissible to the same
extent as the original:
1) If a genuine question is raised as to the
authenticity of the original;
2) If in the circumstances it would be unjust
or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of
the original.
AUTHENTICATION OF E-DOCUMENTS
• The burden of proving authenticity is on the
person seeking to introduce an e-document in
any legal proceeding. [Rule 5, Sec. 1, REE]
• Before any private electronic document offered
as authentic is received in evidence, its
authenticity must be proved by any of the
following means: [Rule 5, Sec. 2, REE]
1) By evidence that it had been digitally
signed by the person purported to have
signed the same;
2) By evidence that other appropriate security
procedures/devices as may be authorized
by the SC or by law for authentication of e-
documents were applied to the document;
3) By other evidence showing its integrity and
reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
• A document electronically notarized in
accordance with the rules promulgated by the
SC shall be considered as a public document
and proved as a notarial document under the
ROC. [Rule 5, Sec. 3, REE]
EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF E-DOCUMENTS [Rule 7,
Sec. 1, REE]
• Factors for assessing evidentiary weight:
1) The reliability of the manner/method in
which it was
generated/stored/communicated, including
but not limited to input and output
procedures, controls, tests and checks for
accuracy and reliability of the electronic
data message or document, in the light of
all the circumstances as well as any
relevant agreement;
2) The reliability of the manner in which its
originator was identified;
3) The integrity of the information and
communication system in which it is
recorded/stored, including but not limited
to the hardware and computer programs or
software used as well as programming
errors;
4) The familiarity of the witness or the person
who made the entry with the
communication and information system;
5) The nature and quality of the information
which went into the communication and
information system upon which the
electronic data message or electronic
document was based;
6) Other factors which the court may consider
as affecting the accuracy/integrity of the
electronic document or electronic data
message.
INTEGRITY OF AN INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM [Rule 7, Sec. 2, REE]
• In any dispute involving the integrity of the
information and communication system in
which an e-document or e-data message is
recorded/stored, the court may consider the
following factors:
1) WON the information and communication
system or other similar device was operated
in a manner that did not affect the integrity
2008 Page 23 of 26
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

of the e-document, and there are no other evidence of such proceedings. [Rule 10, Sec. 3,
reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of REE]
the information and communication system;
2) WON the e-document was recorded/stored EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION
by a party to the proceedings with interest • Definition: Refers to telephone conversations,
adverse to that of the party using it; text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming
3) WON the e-document was recorded/stored audio, streaming video and other electronic
in the usual and ordinary course of business forms of communication the evidence of which
by a person who is not a party to the is not recorded/retained. [Rule 2, Sec. 1(k),
proceedings and who did not act under the REE]
control of the party using it. • It shall be proven by the testimony of a person
who was a party to the same or has personal
HEARSAY RULE EXCEPTION [Rule 8, Sec. 1, REE] knowledge thereof. In the absence or
• A memorandum/report/record or data unavailability of such witnesses, other
compilation of competent evidence may be admitted. [Rule
acts/events/conditions/opinions/diagnoses 11, Sec. 2, REE]
made by electronic, optical or other similar
means at or near the time of or from AUDIO, PHOTOGRAPHIC AND VIDEO EVIDENCE
transmission or supply of information by a • Audio, photographic and video evidence of
person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the events/acts/transactions shall be admissible
regular course/conduct of a business activity, provided it shall be shown/presented/displayed
and such was the regular practice to make the to the court and shall be
memorandum/report/record or data identified/explained/authenticated by the
compilation by electronic, optical or similar person who made the recording or by some
means, all of which are shown by the testimony other person competent to testify on the
of the custodian or other qualified witnesses. accuracy thereof. [Rule 11, Sec. 1, REE]
• This presumption may be overcome by • The same rule covers a recording of the
evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic
of information or the method or circumstances communication.
of the preparation, transmission or storage • If ephemeral, audio, photographic and video
thereof. [Rule 8, Sec. 2, REE] evidence are recorded/embodied in an
electronic document, then the provisions
ESTABLISHING MATTERS RELATING TO THE authentication e-documents apply. [Rule 11,
ADMISSIBILITY AND EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT OF AN Sec. 2, REE]
E-DOCUMENT [Rule 9, REE]
• By an affidavit stating facts of direct personal
knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic
records.
• The affidavit must affirmatively show the
competence of the affiant to testify on the
matters contained therein. [Rule 9, Sec. 1,
REE]
• The affiant shall be made to affirm the contents
of the affidavit in open court and may be cross-
examined as a matter of right by the adverse
party. [Rule 9, Sec. 2, REE]

ELECTRONIC TESTIMONY

• After summarily hearing the parties pursuant to

Rule 9, REE, the court may authorize the
presentation of testimonial evidence by
electronic means. Before so authorizing, the
court shall determine the necessity for such
presentation and prescribe terms and
conditions as may be necessary under the
circumstances, including the protection of the
rights of the parties and witnesses concerned.
[Rule 10, Sec. 1, REE]
• When examination of a witness is done
electronically, the entire proceedings, including
the questions and answers, shall be transcribed
by a stenographer, steno typist or other
recorder authorized for the purpose, who shall
certify as correct the transcript done by him.
The transcript should reflect the fact that the
proceedings, either in whole or in part, had
been electronically recorded. [Rule 10, Sec. 2,
REE]
• The electronic evidence and recording thereof
as well as the stenographic notes shall form
part of the record of the case. Such transcript
and recording shall be deemed prima facie

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 24 of 26

EVIDENCE
X. RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A
CHILD WITNESS [AM 00-4-07-SC]
SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
• It shall govern the examination of child
witnesses who are victims of crime, accused of
a crime, and witnesses to crime. It shall apply
in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal
proceedings involving child witnesses. [Sec. 1]
• The ROC provisions on deposition, conditional
examination of witnesses and evidence shall be
applied suppletorily. [Sec. 32]
CHILD WITNESS
• Definition: [Sec. 4(a)]
1) Any person who at the time of giving
testimony is < 18 years;
2) In child abuse cases, A child includes one
over 18 years but is found by the court as
unable to fully take care of himself or
protect himself from abuse/neglect/cruelty/
exploitation/discrimination because of a
physical/mental disability or condition.
• Every child is presumed qualified to be a
witness. To rebut the presumption of
competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of
proof lies on the party challenging his
competence. [Sec. 6(b)]
• When the court finds that substantial doubt
exists regarding the ability of the child to
perceive/remember/communicate, distinguish
truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to
tell the truth in court, a competency exam shall
be conducted.
• The age of the child by itself is not a
sufficient basis for a competency
examination. [Sec. 6(a)]
• The court has the duty of continuously
assessing the competence of the child
throughout his testimony. [Sec. 6(f)]
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC DURING THE
CHILD’S EXAMINATION
• Rationale:
1) To protect the right to the child’s privacy;
2) If the court determines on the record that
requiring the child to testify in open court
would cause psychological harm to him,
hinder the ascertainment of truth, or result
in his inability to effectively communicate
due to embarrassment/fear/timidity.
ALTERNATIVE MODES OF GIVING
TESTIMONY
1) Live-link television testimony, in criminal cases
where the child is a victim or a witness. [Sec.
25]
• 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, his counsel or
the prosecutor. The trauma must be of a
kind which would impair the
completeness/truthfulness of the child’s
testimony.
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS
REMEDIAL LAW
• If it is necessary for the child to identify the
accused at trial, the court may allow the
child to enter the courtroom for the limited
purpose of identifying the accused, or the
court may allow the child to identify the
accused by observing the image of the
latter on a television monitor.
2) Screens, one-way mirrors and other devices to
shield child from accused. [Sec. 26]
3) Videotaped deposition. [Sec. 27]
• If the court finds that the child will not be
able to testify in open court at trial, it shall
issue an order that the deposition of the
child be taken and preserved by videotape.
• The rights of the accused during trial,
especially the right to counsel and to
confront and cross-examine the child, shall
not be violated during the deposition.
WHEN TO TAKE THE CHILD’S TESTIMONY
• The court may order that the testimony of the
child should be taken during a time of day
when the child is well-rested. [Sec. 14]
PROVISIONS FOR EASE OF CHILD IN
TESTIFYING
1) Interpreter for child. [Sec. 9]
2) Facilitator to pose questions to child. [Sec. 10]
3) Support persons. [Sec. 11]
• A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or
making a deposition shall have the right to
be accompanied by 1 or 2 persons of his
own choosing to provide him emotional
support.
4) Waiting area for child witnesses that is
separate from waiting areas used by other
persons. [Sec. 12]
5) Courtroom environment is made a more
comfortable environment for the child. [Sec.
13]
6) Recess during testimony: The child may be
allowed reasonable periods of relief while
undergoing direct, cross, re-direct, and re-cross
examinations as often as necessary depending
on his developmental level. [Sec. 15]
7) Testimonial aids: use of dolls, anatomically-
correct dolls, puppets, drawings, mannequins,
or any other appropriate demonstrative device
to assist him in his testimony. [Sec. 16]
8) Emotional security item: While testifying, a
child shall be allowed to have an item of his
own choosing such as a blanket/toy/doll. [Sec.
17]
9) Conduct in questioning the witness: The court
shall exercise control over the questioning of
children so as to: [Sec. 19]
a) Facilitate the ascertainment of the truth;
b) Ensure that questions are stated in a form
appropriate to the child’s developmental
level;
c) Protect children from harassment or undue
embarrassment;
d) Avoid waste of time.
• The court may allow the child witness to
testify in a narrative form.
10) Weight given to testimony of child witness: His
testimony, if credible by itself, shall be
sufficient to support a finding of
fact/conclusion/judgment subject to the
standard of proof required in criminal and non-
criminal cases. [Sec. 22]
2008 Page 25 of 26
EVIDENCE REMEDIAL LAW

HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN CHILD ABUSE

CASES [Sec. 28]

• Before the hearsay statement may beadmitted,

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.
• If the child is available, the court shall
require the child to be present at the
presentation of the hearsay statement for
cross-examination by the adverse party.
• If the child is unavailable, the fact of
unavailability must be proved by the
proponent and his hearsay testimony shall
be admitted only if corroborated by other
admissible evidence.

SEXUAL ABUSE SHIELD RULE [Sec. 30]

• General rule: The following evidence are

inadmissible in any criminal proceeding
involving alleged child sexual abuse:
1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged
victim engaged in other sexual behavior;
2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual
predisposition of the alleged victim.
• Exception: 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, injury or other
physical evidence shall be admissible.

OTHER PROTECTIVE MEASURES

• Video/audio tapes that are part of the court

record may be viewed only by parties, their
counsel, their expert witness and the guardian
ad litem. But they cannot divulge the tape (or
any portion thereof) to any other person,
except as necessary for the trial.
• The court may issue additional orders to protect
the child’s privacy.
• Publication (or causing it) in any format any
identifying information of a child who is or is
alleged to be a victim/accused of a crime or a
witness thereof, or an immediate family of the
child, shall be liable for contempt of court.
• A child has a right at any court proceeding not
to testify regarding personal identifying
information that could endanger his physical
safety or his family. However, the court may
require the child to testify regarding personal
identifying information in the interest of justice.
• The records of a youthful offender shall be
considered as privileged and may not be
disclosed in/directly to anyone for any purpose
whatsoever.
• Exception: If he has been charged and the
court acquits him, or dismisses the case or
commits him to an institution and
subsequently releases him pursuant to
Chapt. 3, PD 603:
1) To determine if he may have his
sentence suspended (under Art. 192,
PD 603);
2) To determine if he may be granted
probation (under PD 968);
3) To enforce his civil liability, if said
liability has been imposed in the
criminal action.

100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008 Page 26 of 26