Page 1


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Prepond of Proof Reasonable erance of Doubt evidence Denial General Must be Denial Specific Allowed Denial Withdrawal Withdrawn Judicial of plea is Admissio Plea/Admis inadmissible n sion withdraw n becomes an extrajudi cial admissio n Cross Applicable Not Examinatio applicabl n in e

Summary Procedure Equiponder ance Rule

Accused acquitted

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

More one required

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

Not applicable

Applicabl e

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

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


Page 2


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

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


Page 3


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

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

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


Page 4


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

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

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


Page 5


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

upon proof of (1) its execution or existence and (2) cause of its unavailability.1. Allied Free Workers.The offeror. or direct or circumstantial competent evidence of the character of a questioned handwriting. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (2) It is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. If all requisites have been met. without bad faith on his part may prove its contents by: = A copy = A recital of its contents in some authentic document = The testimony of witnesses. and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. 21 (Not Required to Authenticate) Requisites: (1) The private document is more than 30 years old. . or manifest dearth. April 27. No. therefore. (Compania Maritima vs. 1997 Edition. between the questioned handwriting and an authentic one. .Ancient Document Rule = Rule 132. 132435 prom. It is enough that the circumstances show that the writing is in his possession or under his control. 1998 citing Lorenzo v. with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. 22 It may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write.1. he fails to produce the document. Part I.3 when original document is a public record. Secondary evidence is admissible where the adverse party denies having it in his possession. or dissimilarities. no other evidence of its authenticity is required. Vol. Not much weight is given to handwriting experts. Sec. 2. much weight should not be given to characteristic similarities. 2. Ferrer. it is not necessary that it be in the actual possession of the adverse party. How Proven = Rule 132. G. (3) It is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion. 1968) All duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before using copies as . Sec. in a given case. or d) was otherwise properly or innocent made. or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. there is. 2. Sec. or e) The alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. PRIVATE DOCUMENTS.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. . or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged. 20 Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence. 5-8 2. supra) 2. Diaz. p. 1977) In the case where the original is in the custody of the adverse party. Commission on Elections. its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (1) by anyone who say the document executed or written. destroyed or cannot be produced in court) . 4110-4111. Secondary Evidence – Rule 130. 674) Questions involving the mere similarity or dissimilarity of handwritings could be determined by the court itself as authorized under Sec.R.Its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court by making a comparison of the disputed handwriting "with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered. Secs.How Genuineness of Handwriting is Proven = Rule 132. Unless. or (2) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.1 when original document is unavailable (lost. The voluminous character of the document must be established before evidence other than the original may be introduced." (Punzalan v. The order stated must be followed. absolute absence. 53 O. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison made by the witness or the court. Commission on Elections.G.2 When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control. VII. 22. cited in Francisco on Evidence. secondary evidence may be presented. (Punzalan v. .hlp©2009 Page 10 8/24/201110 affected by it. (Villa Rey Transit vs.1.1 Instances when secondary evidence may be introduced: 2. or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.2 A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects it is not obliged to offer it as evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

who. WArner Barnes & Co. or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense. Aldecoa & Co. 76 Phil. v. 3) When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties. 1971).A plea of guilty later withdrawn. Inc. Testimonial Knowledge – Rule 130. 1965) The testimony of a witness on the confession made to him by the accused is not hearsay. Sec.. De Guzman. Reyes. (Marisfosque v. 1995) Compromises – Rule 130. 2. Sec. (People v. The testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person. Gaddi. Cusi. except as otherwise provided in these rules. Luna. if intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence. Santos. (Top-Weld Manufacturing. ECED. 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. (People vs. Pagkaliwagan. It has long been held that in cases of public crimes. (Sec. May 25. by affidavit or deposition would impute the commission of an offense to him. 139 SCRA 586-587 citing People v.hlp©2009 Page 22 8/24/201122 competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it. People v. Criminal Cases – An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt EXCEPT in cases involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised. 1989) Examples of hearsay evidence: 1) The testimony of a witness as to what he has heard another person say about the facts in dispute. Brioso.Civil Cases – An offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability. (People vs. Such a constitutional safeguard cannot be satisfied unless the opportunity is given to the accused to test the credibility of any person.. uncontroverted by competent evidence and not inherently improbable. Lavarez. 30 Phil. 1995) A plea of forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise. (People vs. and is not admissible against the offeror. 153) NOTE: See concept of independent relevant statement. 1997) THE Hearsay Rule 1. is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer. 7. or the tenor of such statement. 27 1. . It is otherwise if the purpose is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made. It would be to disregard one of the most valuable guarantees of a person accused if solely on the affidavits presented. v. 354. 23 SCRA 1301) Exceptions: when affidavits are given weight: 1) Where said affidavits are overwhelming. L-9095. Godoy. 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. 2) Affidavits. 76 Phil.. Yparriguirre. hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury. 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. but the court may direct hat the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge = those which are derived from his own perception. 138 SCRA 132) 2) Under the Rule on Summary Procedure for civil cases. 36 1 What can a witness testify to? . 1957.. et al. The Good Samaritan Rule: An offer to pay or the payment of medical. 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. . Maqueda.A. 457) General rule: Affidavits without presenting affiant in court is mere hearsay: The constitutional right to confrontation precludes reliance on affidavits. S. Rule 133.. (People vs. his guilt could be predicated. et al. (People vs. (People vs.

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

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

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

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

all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses. periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history. record or data compilation of acts. 44 When made: Entries made at. Treatment of such evidence: prima facie evidence. science. Sec.11 Prior Testimony – Rule 130. periodical. Hearsay rule exception: A memorandum. periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. 42. Secs. REE When made: Entries made at. (Tan vs. report. Sec. Section 2. Treatment of such evidence: prima facie evidence. 1993) 2. or unable to testify. if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. who was in a position to know the facts therein stated. or unable to testify. equivalent to the actual .8 Official Records – Rule 130.7 Entries in the Course of Business – Rule 130. identity. and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity. or near the time of transactions to which they refer By whom made: by a person deceased. 1967) Conduct and Character as Evidence Conduct – Rule 130. register. and such was the regular practice to make the memorandum. The report submitted by a police officer in the performance of his duties on the basis of his own personal observation of the facts reported. or diagnoses. and the like. conditions. involving the same parties and subject matter. 2. system. When given: in a former case or proceeding. habit. By whom made: by a person deceased. Rule 8. the presumption is that he is really a good person. who was in a position to know the facts therein stated. Sec. that the writer of the statement in the treatise. Cabuang. or other published compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. transmission or storage thereof. if such person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. or data compilation by electronic. plan. events. Africa. but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge. report. Sec.hlp©2009 Page 27 8/24/201127 accused in the community. . (Caltex vs. or a witness expert in the subject testifies. scheme. 34-35 . Section 1.9 Commercial Lists – Rule 130. Sec. CA. 45 Evidence of statements of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list. This presumption may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of information or the method or circumstances of the preparation. 46 A published treatise. or near the time of transactions to which they refer. record.An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is. 1966) Entries in a police blotter are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. 2. or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice. may properly be constituted as an exception. law. 47 By whom made: a witness deceased or unable to testify. custom or usage. because that flows from the established principle in substantive law that everyone is acting in good faith. “Unable to testify” refers to an inability proceeding from a grave cause almost amounting to death as when the witness is old and has lost the power of speech. Principle of NEGATIVE REPUTE If in a community nothing good or bad is heard about a particular person.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. optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof. 2.10 Learned Treatises – Rule 130. opinions. made by electronic. Rule 8. (People vs. 2. judicial or administrative. if rejected without valid cause. Rule 8. optical or similar means. When admissible: may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him.

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

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

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

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

(5a) The presumption that evidence not produced or willfully suppressed is adverse to the party. Sec.There is absolute immunity. 2. = One <15. or insulting questions.3 Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the issue.1 To be protected from irrelevant. re-cross or re-direct examination.the witness will still be indicted for the commission of an offense. Padiernos. <60 and the sex be different. both to prosecution and . 3 Obligation of a witness: answer questions. the older. = One < 15 or >. (Likewise done in examination of a child witness. there is no direct. unless it to be the very fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue would be presumed. the male is deemed to have survived.hlp©2009 Page 32 8/24/201132 is not shown who died first. the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes. 2. since in Summary Procedure the testimonies of the witnesses. and from harsh or insulting demeanor. Examination of Witnesses 1.2 Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require.preliminary examination of witnesses for the purpose of establishing whether or not a witness really is qualified as such. the court directs the witness to give an answer and the witness obeys the order of the court. as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other. 1 open court under oath or affirmation . except a child witness. 2. Later on the answer turns out to be incriminatory and later on the witness was indicted for the commission of this offense.That if there is a doubt. and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred. Case: Supposing a witness refused to answer because he feels the question is incriminatory.Mode of answering General Rule: oral Exception: o Witness is incapacitated to speak or o Question calls for a different mode of answer 2. according to the following rules: = Both < 15: older survived. 2. In criminal cases under Summary Procedure. other >60: <15 survived. shall prove the same. (People vs. He is not immunized from prosecution. Use Immunity. Transactional Immunity. will not apply if the evidence is at the disposal of both the defense and the prosecution and if the evidence is merely conclusive. the affidavits of the witnesses take the place of the direct examination. as to which of them died first.4 Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law. the latter is deemed to have survived. in the absence of proof. but the statements given by the witness cannot be used against him. There is cross examination VOIR DIRE. or 2. if the sex be the same. Presentation of Evidence Note: The Rules apply to Summary Procedure but in a modified form. Hence. = Both > 60: younger survived. EXCEPTIONS TO RULE AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION 1. improper. However. because the witnsess has initially objected and he gave the answer only in compliance with an order of the court. But a witness must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense. Sec. Affiant is not allowed in Summary Procedure to embody hearsay testimony. . According to some decisions that could be treated as a compelled testimony given under duress and therefore could not be used against the witness.5 Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his reputation. and the other between those ages. can his testimony in court be given in evidence against him in the form of an admission? NO. Rights and Obligations – Rule 132. = Both >15. 1976) VII. cross. whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other. although his answer may tend to establish a claim against him. plaintiff and defendant can write their questions and give it to the judge) Note: Ordinary witnesses are not allowed to be examined in a narrative form. How done – Rule 132. Rights of a witness: 2. A. they shall be considered to have died at the same time. but it is only the judge who can ask questions. (in civil cases) will be reduced into writing in the form of affidavit.

or a child of tender years. 2.2 Cross-Examination – Rule 132. On re-direct-examination. and = To elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. or is of feeble mind. Sec. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer.e. Rivera.When conducted: after the crossexamination of the witness has been concluded .Adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination. the court in its discretion may allow questions on matters not dealt with during the crossexamination.hlp©2009 Page 33 8/24/201133 use of the statements given by the witness.1 Direct Examination – Rule 132. 3.restricts crossexamination to facts and circumstances which are connected with the matters that have been stated in the direct examination of the witness. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion as the interests of justice may require. or a deaf-mute. or o A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his  adverse interest. Implied waiver of cross-examination – The party was given the opportunity Dela Paz vs. Misleading questions 1 Those that assume as true a fact not yet testified to by the witness. Sec. or the reverse. 3. with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias. particularly described vital documents were not presented to the witness. Sec. or contrary to that which he has previously stated. 6 . 2. American Rule. 4.  General Rule: Not allowed  Exceptions: 1. Sec. or connected therewith. Sec. and when witness is hostile or adverse party witness) 3. 3. and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion. the examination not being confined to the matters inquired about in the direct examination. IAC (1987) TWO RULES ON LIMITS OF CROSS EXAMINATION 1. Of an unwilling or hostile witness. 2 Not allowed. English Rule. upon the conclusion of the redirect examination. There must be a satisfactory showing of some concrete. the cross-examination was conducted in so inept a manner as to result in a virtual absence thereof.  unjustified reluctance to testify. 1991) 5. the witness cannot be recalled without leave of court. Sec. 6. 8 . Recalling Witnesses – Rule 132. • When the answer is derived from a leading question the evidence has no probative value at all even if there is no objection to a leading question. 9 .4 Re-cross Examination – Rule 132.When conducted: upon termination of direct examination . Sec.After the examination of a witness has been concluded by both sides has been concluded. Order in the Examination – Rule 132. 4 3. substantial ground (i. 4.Why conducted: to explain or supplement his answers given during the crossexamination. (People vs. 3. 10 Leading questions  Questions that suggest to the witness the answer. . particularly identified material points were not covered in the crossexamination. 5 . (applies when witness is the accused in a criminal case. On preliminary matters. On cross examination. are leading questions. or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.where a witness is called to testify to a particular fact. When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant. or  his having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. he becomes a witness for all purposes and may be fully cross-examined upon all matters material to the issue.Examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue. which the examining party desires. 7 .Matters covered: witness may be crossexamined by the adverse party as to – = Any matters stated in the direct examination.3 Re-direct Examination – Rule 132. director. Leading and Misleading Questions – Rule 132.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any public record. an official copy of which is admissible in evidence. . 28 A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search. . the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. Sec. Sec. conditional examination of witnesses.How Proven = Rule 132. accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody. or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal. Sec. 26 . 1.1-A Written official acts of the sovereign authority. (ß32) Authentication and Proof of Documents 1.1 Public Documents – Rule 132. . 21 Requisites: (1) The private document is more than 30 years old. Sec. its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (1) by anyone who say the document executed or written. Sec. and evidence shall be applied in a suppletory character. official bodies and tribunals. Classes of Documents 1. 24 . 1. If the record is in a foreign country. 20 Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence.Ancient Document Rule = Rule 132.Such may be proved by the original record. 30 . except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case.1.1.How Proven = Rule 132. whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country. (3) It is unblemished by . Suppletory application of Rules of Court: The provisions of the Rules of Court on deposition. or by his deputy. must not be removed from the office in which it is kept. no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office. . (2) It is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine. official bodies and tribunals. VI. is admissible to prove that the records of his office contain no such record or entry.How Proven = Sec.Proof of Lack of Record = Sec. with a certificate that such officer has the custody. and accompanied.1-BRecords of the official acts of the sovereign authority. Sec.The record may be evidenced by: (1) an official publication thereof. *Contents of Attestation = Rule 132.3 Public Records (kept in the Philippines) of Private Documents required by law to be entered therein .The attestation must state that the copy is a correct copy of the original or a specific part thereof. attested by the legal custodian of the record. even against a third person of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. or (2) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.  The youthful offender concerned shall not be held under any provision of law to be guilty of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made to him for any purpose. consul. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer. the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation. or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept.How Proven = Rule 132. or a copy thereof. if there be any. 23 .hlp©2009 Page 45 8/24/201145 liability. vice-consul. with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.2 Private Documents . . consul-general. All other public documents are evidence.1. and public officers. under the seal of such court.Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.2 Notarial Documents except last wills and testaments. 19 1. if said liability has been imposed in the criminal action. and public officers. as the case may be. Sec. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.Notarial documents may be presented in evidence without further proof.How Proven = Rule 132.1. whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country. 1. 27 . (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. 1. and authenticated by the seal of his office. if the record is not kept in the Philippines. . Sec 25 .Irremovability of Record = Rule 132.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful