Doctrine: As an exception to the scope of the Rules of Evidence, Section 16 of P.D.

No. 946 provides that the rules of court shall not be applicable even in a
suppletory character in Agrarian cases.
Doctrine: Since admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and
competence, admissibility is, therefore, an affair of logic and law. On the other
hand, the weight to be given to such evidence, once admitted, depends on
judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in Rule 133 and jurisprudence
laid down by the Court. Thus, while evidence may be admissible, it may be
entitled to little or no weight at all.
Doctrine: Relevant evidence is one that has any value in reason as tending to
prove any matter probable in an action. And evidence is said to be material when
it is directed to prove a fact in issue as determine by the particular case.
Doctrine: The remoteness of the flight goes to the weight of the evidence rather
than to its admissibility.The mere possession of a quantity of money is in itself
no indication that the possessor was the taker of money charged as taken,
because in general all money of the same denomination and material is alike,
and the hypothesis that the money found is the same as the money taken is too
forced and extraordinary to be receivable.
Doctrine: The phrase "device or arrangement" in Section 1 of RA No. 4200,
although not exclusive to that enumerated therein, should be construed to
comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature, that is, instruments the
use of which would be tantamount to tapping the main line of a telephone. It
refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the
party or parties being overheard because, by their very nature, they are not of
common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping, intercepting or
recording a telephone conversation.
Doctrine: Tape recordings made absent the consent of both parties to the
conversation or communication is held inadmissible under Section 4 of the
AntiRWiretapping Law.
Doctrine: Violation of Anti Wiretapping Law may be committed by a party to a
private conversation or process. Absent such consent, then such recording will be
held inadmissible as evidence. Moreover, private communications as protected by
the AntiRWiretapping Law, includes private conversations.
Doctrine: All courts must take judicial notice of ordinances falling or applicable

within the parameters of their respective jurisdiction. MTC- ordinance in locality,

RTC depends on the charter of the LGU
Doctrine: Courts may take judicial notice of the previous cases decided with
finality of a judgment in a case previously pending and decided by it. When the
ground of the dismissal motion is, a prior judgment rendered by the same
court a fact known to the court and to the parties as well, as in the case at bar
the taking of judicial notice of said prior judgment by the same court
constitutes the very evidence needed to dispose of the dismissal motion.
Doctrine: The general rule is that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice
in the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents of other cases,
even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and
notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or are actually
pending before the same judge. - The current law provides that when the parties
would want the court to take judicial notice of matters relevant to the case then
they may announce such intention and be heard thereon. In the case at bar,
there was a failure to request or announce such intention.
YAO2KEE v. SY- Gonzalez Doctrine: Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice
of foreign laws, it must be alleged and proved as any other fact. Doctrine of
Processual Presumption
TABUENA v. COURT OF APPEALS Doctrine: In the adjudication of a case, a
court is not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the record of
another case except: 1. When in the absence of objection, with the knowledge of
the opposing party, said other case is clearly referred to in a pending action and
adopted and read into the record of the latter, 2. When the original record of the
other case is actually withdrawn and admitted as part of the record of the
pending case. in this case, the evidence which the record is sought to be
corroborative is in itself inadmissible because they were not formally offered
into evidence hence case was dismissed for failure to substantiate their
allegations.
PEOPLE v. GODOYDoctrine: The Court takes judicial cognizance of the fact that
in rural areas in the Philippines, young ladies are strictly required to act with
circumspection and prudence. Great caution is observed so that their reputations
shall remain untainted. Any breath of scandal which brings dishonor to their
character humiliates their entire families. lol
BPI2FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS Doctrine: Courts are not

authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases,
even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and
notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been heard or are actually
pending before the same judge. Nevertheless, Section 2 of Rule 129 states that
judicial notice should be taken of matters which are ought to be known by judges
by reason of their judicial functions. - In this case, a copy of the CTA decision
was attached to the Petition for Review filed before the SC. The SC stated that
such fact was not the whole basis of the petitioners case. It was one more bit of
information showing that petitioner did not use its 1989 refund to pay its taxes
for 1990.
LUCIDO v. CALUPITANDoctrine: Pleadings are to be treated as statements of
real issues in the cause and hence as admissions of the parties, having weight
according to the circumstances of each case. On the same principle, where
amended pleadings have been filed, allegations in the original pleadings are
held admissible, but in such case the original pleadings can have no effect
unless formally offered in evidence. in connection to RULE on Admissions
TORRES v. COURT OF APPEALS Doctrine: If a complaint is amended, the
original complaint loses its character as a judicial admission, which would have
required no proof, and becomes merely an extrajudicial admission, the
admissibility of which, as evidence, requires its formal offer. - Teehankee
Dissent: because respondents subsequently deleted the same in their amended
complaint. The original complaint, although replaced by an amended
complaint, does not cease to be a part of the judicial record, not having been
expunged therefrom.
SISON v. PEOPLEDoctrine: Photographs, to be admissible as evidence, can be
identified either by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can
testify to its exactness and accuracy. Moreover, as in this case, the use, by the
party against whom the evidence is sought to be admitted, is an admission of the
exactness and accuracy of the photograph.
ADAMCZUK v. HOLLOWAY Doctrine: Before a photograph is made admissible,
it must form part of the witness testimony, in other words, it must be verified. If
a witness is familiar with the scene photographed, and is competent to testify
that the photograph correctly represents it, it should, if relevant, be admitted. The rule is well settled that a photograph may be put in evidence if relevant to
the issue and if verified. It does not have to be verified by the taker. Its
verification depends on the competency of the verifying witness and as to that

the trial judge must in the first instance decide, subject to reversal for
substantial error.
STATE OF WASHINGTON v. TATUM Doctrine: For a photograph to be
admissible in evidence, the authentication required by courts is that some
witness (not necessarily the photographer) be able to give some indication as to
when, where, and under what circumstances the photograph was taken, and
that the photograph accurately portray the subject or subjects illustrated.
AIR FRANCE v. CARRASCOSO Doctrine: When the subject is not the actual
entry in a document but the fact that the entry was made, it does not come
within the prohibition of the Best Evidence Rule and is therefore admissible in
evidence. The subject of the inquiry is not the entry but the ouster incident.
Testimony on the entry does not come within the proscription of the BER.
Testimonial evidence is the crux of the matter here not the contents of the
entry.
MEYERS v. UNITED STATES Doctrine: Best evidence rule would apply in cases
where the contents of a writing needs to be proven. in this case there was no
attempt to prove the contents of the transcript but the issue was whether
Lamarre made such statements and not what is contained in the transcript.
Statements alleged to perjuries may be proved by any person who heard them,
as well as, by the reporter who recorded them in shorthand.
PEOPLE v. TAN Doctrine: Documents which were produced with the use of
carbon sheets are admissible as evidence. the triplicate copies are considered
duplicate originals.
SEILER v. LUCASFILM, LTD. Doctrine: Copyrighted drawings offered as
evidence are considered as documentary evidence and when subject of inquiry is
the content of the creation the original must be presented. EXISTENCEEXECUTION LOSS- CONTENTS
PEOPLE v. TANDOY Doctrine: When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document then the best evidence rule would apply. -in this case the prosecution
presented the marked money solely for the purpose of establishing its existence
and not its contents presented the marked money, other substitutionary
evidence like a Xerox copy is admissible without the need of accounting for the
original. This comes under the Object evidence.
UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO AND BALISTOY Doctrine: In criminal cases

where the document is used as evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, the
best evidence applies. n criminal proceedings for the falsification of a
document, it is indispensable that the judges and courts have before them the
document alleged to have been simulated, counterfeited, or falsified, in order
that they may find, pursuant to the evidence produced in the cause, whether or
not the crime of falsification was committed, and also, at the same time, to
enable them to determine the degree of each defendant's liability in the
falsification under prosecution.
FISCAL OF PAMPANGA v. REYES & GUEVARRA Doctrine: The general rules
regarding the admissibility of evidence are applicable to cases of libel or slander.
When such libel or slander was committed through a published article, copies of
such article constitute the best evidence.
VDA. DE CORPUS v. BRABANGCO Doctrine: It is not necessary, in order to
admit evidence of the contents of lost instrument, that the witness should be able
to testify with verbal accuracy to its contents, it is sufficient that they are able to
state it in substance. - it is held sufficient if the witnesses can recollect and
testify to facts showing the presence of essential elements of a contract: (1)
consent, (2) subject matter, (3) consideration, (4) and form in certain instances.
COMPANIA MARITIMA v. ALLIED FREE WORKERS UNION Doctrine: In order
that the exception to the best evidence rule may be invoked it is important to
prove the following: (1) The voluminous character of the records and (2) that the
records and the accounts should be made accessible to the adverse party so that
the correctness of the summary may be tested on cross examination. The
general rule cannot be relaxed in this case because the company failed to make
a preliminary showing as to the difficulty or impossibility attending the
production of the records in court and their examination and analysis as
evidence by the court. Should be shown on the bill of lading.
VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC. v. FERRER Doctrine: the requisites for the
admissibility of secondary evidence when the original is in the custody of the
adverse party: (1) opponents possession of the original, (2) reasonable notice to
the opponent to produce the original, (3) satisfactory proof of existence, (4) failure
or refusal of opponent to produce the original in court. As to the first element, it is
enough that the circumstances are such as to indicate that the original is in the
actual possession of the adversary. -it is not necessary for a party seeking to
introduce secondary evidence to show that the original is in the actual
possession of his adversary. It is enough that the circumstances are such as to

indicate that the writing is in his possession or under his control. Now comes
the other exception with regard to loss.
MICHAEL & CO. v. ENRIQUEZ Doctrine: Trial courts do well in refusing at all
times to permit the introduction of incompetent evidence and particularly
secondary evidence of the contents of written instruments unless the facts
required by the Code of Civil Procedure as the conditions precedent for such
evidence are clearly shown to exist.
DE VERA v. AGUILARDoctrine: Secondary evidence is admissible when the
original documents were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to the introduction
of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the former existence of
the instrument. The correct order of proof is as follows: (1) existence, (2)
execution, (3) loss, (4) contents, although this order may be changed in the
discretion of the court.
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CODILLA Doctrine: When the subject of
inquiry is the contents of documents, no evidence shall be admissible other than
the original documents themselves, except in certain cases specifically
enumerated therein. Xerox copy of document is not electronic evidence.
MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES v. SANGYONG Doctrine: The terms Electronic Data
message and Electronic Document do not include facisimile transmission or
fax. -facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at best, an exact
copy preserving all the marks of an original.
ENRIQUEZ v. RAMOSDoctrine: The rule on parol evidence holds true if there is
no allegation that the agreement does not express the true intent of the parties
CANUTO v. MARIANODoctrine: The rule forbidding the admission of parol or
extrinsic evidence to alter, vary, or contradict a written instrument does not apply
so as to prohibit the establishment by parol of an agreement between the parties
to a writing, entered into subsequent to the time when the written instrument
was executed, notwithstanding such agreement may have the effect of adding to,
changing, modifying, or even altogether abrogating the contract of the parties.

OPINION RULE
DILAG & CO v. MERCED Doctrine: Generally speaking, any person who by

study or experience has acquired particular knowledge or experience may be

allowed to give in evidence his opinion upon matters of technical knowledge and
skill relating to such business or employment.