EVIDENCE: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Admissibility of Evidence
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
issue and not excluded by the Constitution, the
law or these Rules [Sec. 3, Rule 128]
Admissibility
does
not
concern
weight
Admissibility
of evidence should not be
equated with weight of evidence.
The
admissibility of evidence depends on its
relevance and competence, while the weight of
evidence pertains to evidence already admitted
and its tendency to convince and persuade. Thus,
a particular item of evidence may be admissible,
but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided by the
Rules of Court [Dela Llana v. Biong, G.R. No.
182356 (2013)]
Requisites for Admissibility; Exclusions
Requisites for Admissibility
a. Relevant to the issue; and
b. Not excluded by the Constitution, the
law or the ROC (“competent”) [Sec. 3,
Rule 128]
Relevant
Competent
When the evidence
has such a relation
to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in
its existence or nonexistence [Sec. 4,
Rule 128]
Not excluded by the
Constitution, the law,
or the Rules [Sec. 3,
Rule 128]
Weight has to do with the effect of evidence
admitted; its tendency to convince and persuade.
It depends upon its effect in inducing belief on the
part of the judge trying the case.
Rules of Exclusion v. Exclusionary Rules
Rules
of
Exclusionary
Exclusion
Rules
Rules of exception to Commonly used for
the
general
of evidence excluded by
admissibility of all that the Constitution
is
rational
and
probative
Types of Admissibility
1) Multiple admissibility
Where the evidence is relevant and competent for
two or more purposes, such evidence may be
admitted for any or all purposes for which it is
allowed. An item of evidence may be logically
relevant in several aspects leading to distinct
inferences or as bearing upon different issues. In
this situation the normal practice is to admit
evidence only for the allowable purpose.
(Francisco, supra, p. 23)
e.g., Confession of the accused may not be
competent against his co-accused, being hearsay
in nature, but may be admitted as evidence of his
own guilt.
2) Conditional admissibility
Relevance and materiality not apparent when
offered, but which will readily be seen when
connected to other evidence.
It is usually permitted upon the assurance,
express or implied, that he will “connect up” the
tendered evidence by proving, in the later
progress of the case, the missing facts.
3) Curative admissibility
Where improper evidence was admitted over the
objection of the opposing party, he should be
permitted to contradict it with similar or improper
evidence.
This evidence is introduced to cure, contradict, or
neutralize the improper evidence introduced by
the other party. Note that this protection is not
extended on appeal if he did not object.
Judicial Notice
Judicial Notice is the cognizance of certain facts
which judges may properly take and act upon
without need of proof.
Requisites of judicial notice:
1. The matter must be one of common and
general knowledge;
2. It must be well and authoritatively settled
and not doubtful or uncertain; and
3. It must be one which is not subject to a
reasonable dispute in that it is either:
a. Generally known within the territorial
jurisdiction of the trial court; or
b.
Capable of accurate and ready
determination by resorting to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable
(Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
152392, May 26, 2005).
Matters of Mandatory Judicial Notice
1. Existence and territorial extent of
states;
2. Their political history, forms of
government
and
symbols
of
nationality;
3. Law of nations;
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the
world and their seals;
5. Political constitution and history of
the
Philippines
6. Official acts of legislative, executive
and
judicial
departments
National
Government of the Philippines (NEW
RULE);
7. Laws of nature;
8. Measure of time; and
9. Geographical divisions. (ROC, RULE
129, Sec.
1)
A court may take judicial notice (discretionary)
of matters which are:
1. Of public knowledge; or
2. Capable
of
unquestionable
demonstration; or
3. Ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions.
Judicial Notice, When Hearing is necessary
(NEW RULE)
1. During pre-trial and trial, the court, motu
proprio or upon motion, shall hear the
parties on the propriety of taking judicial
notice of any matter.
2. Before judgement or on appeal, the court,
motu proprio or upon motion, may take
judicial notice of any matter and shall
hear the parties thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue in the case.
Judicial admission
Judicial Admission is an admission, verbal or
written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings.
Elements:
1. The same must be made by a party to the
case;
2. The admission must be made in the
course of the proceedings in the same
case; and
3. There is no particular form for an
admission- it may be written or verbal.
JUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS
EXTRAJUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS
Those made in the Those made out of court or
course
of
the in a judicial proceeding
proceeding in the same other than
the
one
case
under
consideration
Regarded as evidence and
Do not require proof and must be offered as such,
may be contradicted otherwise the court will not
only by showing that it consider it in deciding the
was made through case.
palpable mistake or that
no such admission was
made.
Judicial
admissions Requires formal offer for it to
need not be
be considered
offered
in
evidence since it is not
evidence. It is superior
to evidence and shall be
considered by the court
as established.
Judicial admissions may be made in:
1. The pleadings filed by the parties;
2. In the course of the trial either by verbal
or written manifestations or stipulations;
3. In other stages of the judicial proceeding,
as in the pre-trial of the case;
4. Admissions
obtained
through
depositions, written interrogatories or
requests for admissions.
5. Judicial admission can be made by either
a party or counsel.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Documentary Evidence consists of WR-PAO
1. Writings
2. Recordings
3. Photographs
4. Any material containing letters, words,
sounds etc. Other modes of written expression
Procedure on how to present documentary
evidence before the court: (AIMO)
1. It should be Authenticated and proved in
the manner provided in the rules of court;
2. It should be Identified and Marked; and
3. It should be formally Offered to the court
and shown to the opposing party so that
the latter may have the opportunity to
object thereto (Ramcar, Inc. v. Hi-Power
Marketing, G.R. No. 157075, July 17,
2006)
Requisites for Admissibility: (RAWO)
a. The document must be Relevant
b. The evidence must be Authenticated
c.
The
document must
be authenticated by a Competent
witness; and
d.
The
document must be
formally Offered in evidence. (RIANO, p.
183)
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
EVIDENCE) RULE
(or
BEST
Original Document must be produced;
exceptions
When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, writing,
recording, photograph or other record, no
evidence is admissible other than the
original document itself, except in the
following cases:
a. When the original is lost or
destroyed,
or
cannot
be
produced in court, without bad
faith on the part of the offeror;
b. When the original is in the
custody or under the control of
the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter
fails to produce it after
reasonable notice, or the original
cannot be obtained by local
judicial processes or procedures;
c. 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;
d. When the original is a public
record in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public
office; and
e. When the original is not closelyrelated to a controlling issue
Applicability: The Best Evidence Rule applies
only when the terms of a written document are the
subject of the inquiry. In an action for quieting of
title based on the inexistence of a deed of sale
with right to repurchase that purportedly cast a
cloud on the title of a property, therefore, the Best
Evidence Rule does not apply, and the defendant
is not precluded from presenting evidence other
than the original document. (Heirs of Prodon v.
Heirs of Alvarez, G.R. No. 170604, September 2,
2013) There is no reason to apply the best
evidence rule when the issue does not involve the
contents of a writing.
Original of document
(a) An “original” of a document is the
document itself or any counterpart
intended to have the same effect by a
person executing or issuing it. An
“original” of a photograph includes the
negative or any print therefrom. If data is
stored in a computer or similar device,
any printout or other output readable by
sight or other means, shown to reflect the
data accurately, is an “original.”
(b) A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced
by the same impression as the original, or
from the same matrix, or by means of
photography, including enlargements
and miniatures, or by mechanical or
electronic re-recording or by chemical
reproduction, or by other equivalent
techniques which accurately reproduce
the original.
(c) A duplicate is admissible to the same
extent as an original unless: (1) a genuine
question is raised as the authenticity of
the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it
is unjust or inequitable to admit the
duplicate in lieu of the original.
Secondary Evidence
When the original document has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence
and the cause of its unavailability without bad
faith on his or her part, may prove its contents:
(CoRT)
1. By a Copy
2. By a Recital of its contents in some
authentic document
3. By the Testimony of witnesses
Note: The order must be followed.
Predicates of Secondary Evidence
The offeror of the secondary evidence is
burdened to prove satisfactorily the predicates
thereof, namely: (BOLD)
1. Unavailability of the original is not due to
Bad faith on the part of the proponent or
offeror
2. Execution or existence of the Original
3. Loss and destruction of the original or its
non
production in court; and
Proof of the Due execution of the
document and its subsequent loss would
constitute the basis for the introduction of
secondary evidence
(Dantis v. Maghinang Jr., G.R. No.
191696, April 10, 2013)
Rule when more than One Copy exists
When more than one original copy exists, it must
appear that all of them have been lost, destroyed,
or cannot be produced in court before secondary
evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy
may not be used without accounting for the other
originals. (Citibank v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 150905,
September 23, 2003)
presented in the form of a chart, summary, or
calculations
The originals shall be available for examination or
copying, or both, by the adverse party at a
reasonable time and place. The court may order
that be produced in court.
4.
If the document is in the custody or under the
control of the adverse party, he or she must
have a reasonable notice to produce it. If after
such notice and after satisfactory proof of its
existence, he or she fails to produce the
document, secondary evidence may be
presented as in the case of its loss.
Requisites: (PNP-F)
1. Opponent’s Possession of the original
2. Reasonable Notice to opponent to
produce the original
3. Satisfactory Proof of its existence; and
4. Failure or refusal of opponent to produce
the
original in court
Admission of Secondary Evidence
The mere fact that the original of the writing is in
the custody or control of the party against whom
it is offered does not warrant the admission of
secondary evidence. The offeror must prove that
he has done all in his power to secure the best
evidence by giving notice to the said party to
produce the document. When such party has the
original of the writing and does not voluntarily
offer to produce it or refuses to produce it,
secondary evidence may be admitted.
(Magdayao v. People, G.R. No. 152881, August
17, 2004)
When the documents, records, photographs,
or numerous accounts are voluminous and
cannot be examined in court without great
loss of time, and the fact sought to be
established is only the general result of the
whole, the contents of such evidence may be
Originals shall be available for Examination or
Copying, or Both
While the summary may be produced, still the
originals of the voluminous accounts shall be
available for examination or copying, or both, by
the adverse party at a reasonable time and place.
The court may also order that the voluminous
accounts be produced in court.
When the original of a document is in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office, its contents may be proved by a
certified copy issued by the public officer in
custody thereof.
While evidence is admissible when the original of
a document is in the custody of a public officer or
is recorded in a public office, there is a need to
present a certified copy of it issued by the public
officer having custody of the document to prove
its contents. (Republic v. Development
Resources, G.R. 180218, December 18, 2009)
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
The Parol Evidence Rule forbids any addition to
or contradiction of the terms of a written
agreement by testimony or other evidence
purporting to show that different terms were
agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of
the written contract. Whatever is not found in the
writing is understood to have been waived and
abandoned. (Edrada v. Ramos, G.R. No. 154413,
August 31, 2005)
General Rule: When the terms of an agreement
have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there
can be, as between the parties and successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement. (Revised
Rules on Evidence, Rule 130, Sec. 10)
Exceptions: A party may present evidence to
modify, explain or add to the terms of the written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
1. The validity of the written agreement;
2. The failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent of the parties
thereto
3. Subsequent agreements existence of
other terms agreed to by the parties or
their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.
4. Ambiguity (Intrinsic), imperfection or
mistake in the written agreement
The term “agreement” includes wills.
(Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 130,
Sec. 10)
Requisites for Applicability: (VW-PIT)
(a) There must be a Valid contract;
(b) The terms of the writing must be reduced
into Writing
(c) The dispute is between
Parties and
their
successors-in-interest
(d) Grounds for applicability must be put in
Issue in the pleadings, and
(e)
There is dispute as to the Terms of the
agreement
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE APPLICABLE TO
WILLS
General Rule: No evidence on the terms of the
will and its attestation clause is admissible other
than the content of the will.
Interpretation of Documents
Interpretation of a writing according to its
legal meaning. — The language of a writing is to
be interpreted according to the legal meaning it
bears in the place of its execution, unless the
parties intended otherwise. (10)
Instrument construed so as to give effect to
all provisions. — In the construction of an
instrument, where there are several provisions or
particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to
be adopted as will give effect to all. (11)
Interpretation according to intention; general
and particular provisions. — In the construction
of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to
be pursued; and when a general and a particular
provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount
to the former. So a particular intent will control a
general one that is inconsistent with it. (12)
Interpretation according to circumstances. —
For the proper construction of an instrument, the
circumstances under which it was made,
including the situation of the subject thereof and
of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the
judge may be placed in the position of those
whose language he or she is to interpret.
Peculiar signification of terms. — The terms of
a writing are presumed to have been used in their
primary and general acceptation, but evidence is
admissible to show that they have a local,
technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and
were so used and understood in the particular
instance, in which case the agreement must be
construed accordingly.
Written words control printed. — When an
instrument consists partly of written words and
partly of a printed form, and the two are
inconsistent, the former controls the latter.
Experts and interpreters to be used in
explaining certain writings. — When the
characters in which an instrument is written are
difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not
understood by the court, the evidence of persons
skilled in deciphering the characters, or who
understand the language, is admissible to declare
the characters or the meaning of the language.
Of two constructions, which preferred. — When
the terms of an agreement have been intended in
a different sense by the different parties to it, that
sense is to prevail against either party in which
he or she supposed the other understood it, and
when different constructions of a provision are
otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which
is the most favorable to the party in whose favor
the provision was made.
Construction in favor of natural right. — When an
instrument is equally susceptible of two
interpretations, one in favor of natural right and
the other against it, the former is to be adopted.
Interpretation according to usage. — An
instrument may be construed according to usage,
in order to determine its true character.
RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF,
BURDEN
OF
EVIDENCE
AND
PRESUMPTIONS
BURDEN OF PROOF
Burden of Proof or “onus probandi”, defined:
Obligation imposed upon a party who alleges the
existence of facts necessary for the prosecution
of his action or defense to establish the same by
the requisite quantum of evidence. Proof,
defined: The establishment of a requisite degree
of belief in the mind of the trier of fact as to the
fact in issue.(HERRERA, Remedial Law, Vol. VI,
p.1)[hereinafter 6 HERRERA]
Criminal Cases: The burden of proof is on the
prosecution, because under Rule 133 the
accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is
demonstrated by proof beyond reasonable doubt
Civil Cases: In civil cases, it is a basic rule that
the party making allegations has the burden of
proving them by preponderance of evidence.
(Alano v. Mugud-Logmao, GR No. 175540, April
7, 2014)
By preponderance of evidence is meant that the
evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole,
superior to that of the other side. (NFF Industrial
Corporation v G&L Associated Brokerage, GR
No. 178169, January 12, 2015)
Administrative Cases: In administrative cases,
the complainant bears the onus in proving the
averment of his complaint by substantial
evidence. Pinting out circumstances based on
mere conjectures and suppositions are not
sufficient to prove accusations. (Lorenzana v
Austria, A.M NO. RTJ-09-2200. April 2, 2014)
Termination cases: In termination cases, the law
places the burden of proof upon the employer to
show by substantial evidence that the termination
was for a lawful case and in the manner required
by law. (Deoferio v. Intel Technology Philippines
Inc., GR NO. 202996, June 18 2014)
It is, however, incumbent upon the employee to
first establish by substantial evidence the fact of
his or her dismissal. (Noblejas v. Italian Maritime
Academy Philippines, Inc., Gr. No. 207888, June
9, 2014)
Disbarment Proceedings: In disbarment
proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the
complainant to establish respondent attorney’s
liability by clear and convincing evidence. (Chu v.
Guico, A.C. NO. 10573, January 13, 2015)
Infringement cases: The burden of proof to
substantiate a charge of infringement is with the
plaintiff. But where he plaintiff introduces the
patent in evidence, and the same is in due form,
there is created a prima facie presumption of its
correctness and validity.
The decision
of the
Commissioner of Patent (now the Director of the
Intellectual Property Office), in granting the patent
is presumed to be correct.
The burden of going forward with the evidence
(burden of evidence) then shifts to the defendant
to overcome by competent evidence this legal
presumption. (Maguan v. Court of Appeals, et al.,
146 SCRA 116, 117)
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE- the duty resting upon
a party, by means of evidence, to create or meet
a prima facie case.
BURDEN OF PROOF vs. BURDEN OF
EVIDENCE
Burden of Proof NEVER SHIFTS, while Burden of
Evidence is TRANSFERRED from one litigant to
another depending on the progress of trial.
Illustration: Plaintiff files a complaint for recovery
of a defaulted loan. Defendant files an answer
with a negative defense, denying the existence of
the loan. [ At the start, the plaintiff has the burden
of proof and also burden of evidence, he should
go to trial and present evidence to show that he
has a cause of action. If he has introduced
enough proof that he has a cause of action, the
burden of evidence will now be shifted to the
defendant. If defendant presents enough
evidence to prove his negative defense then the
burden of evidence is shifted again to the plaintiff
on rebuttal evidence.] (ESPEJO, Evidence
Explained 2019 Ed. P. 540)
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, the party having the
burden of proof fails upon that issue. (Rivera v.
Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115625, prom.
January 23, 1998)
Therefore, as neither party was able to make out
a case, neither side could establish its cause of
action and prevail with the evidence it had. They
are thus no better off than before they proceeded
to litigate, and, as a consequence thereof, the
courts can only leave them as they are. (Rivera,
supra citing Municipality of Candijay, Bohol v.
Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 530)
PRESUMPTION
Presumption is an inference as to the existence
of a fact not actually know, arising from its usual
connection with another which is known, or a
conjecture based on past experience as to what
course of human affairs ordinarily take. (Perez v
Ysip, GR NO. L-1301, July 9, 1948)
IS PRESUMPTION EVIDENCE?
A presumption is not an evidence but it affects the
burden of offering evidence. It is not evidence in
itself but it is an assumption resulting from
evidence. (ESPEJO, Evidence Explained, 2019
Ed., p. 544)
CLASSIFICATIONS
1. PRESUMPTION JURIS OR OF LAW- 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. PRESUMPTION HOMINIS OR OF FACT- a
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.
(RIANO, supra at 106-107)
CLASSIFICATIONS OF PRESUMPTIONS OF
LAW
1. Conclusive (juris et de jure)- which is a
presumption of law that is irrebuttable and not
permitted to be overcome by any proof to the
contrary, and
2. Disputable (juris tantum) – is that which is
the law permits to be overcome or contradicted
by proofs to the contrary; otherwise the same
remains satisfactory. (RIANO supra at 107-108)
Effect of a Presumption: A party in whose favour
the legal presumption exists may rely on and
invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact
in issue. One need not introduce evidence to
prove the fact, for a presumption is prima facie
proof of the fact presumed. (Diesel Contruction
Co., Inc. v. UPSI Property Holdings, Inc., 549
SCRA 12)
Prima Facie Evidence (Presumptive Evidence)
that which, standing alone unexplained or
uncontradicted, is sufficient to maintain the
proposition affirmed.
Sec. 2. Conclusive presumptions.
The ff are instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a)Whenever a party has by his own declaration,
act, or omission: - intentionally and deliberately
led another: o to believe a particular thing true,
and to to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any
litigation arising out of such declaration, act or
omission, be permitted to falsify it.
(b)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. (3a)
Classes of Conclusive Presumption:
1. ESTOPPEL IN PAIS (Rule 131,
Sec. 2(a)) – The fact which the party
in estoppel has represented to be
true is conclusively presumed as
against him to be true.
Note: Estoppel is effective only as between the
parties thereto or their successors in interest.
2. ESTOPPEL BY DEED (Rule 131,
Sec. 2 (b)) – The ownership of the
landlord at the start of the tenancy
relation is conclusively presumed as
against the tenant.
Note: If the title asserted is one that is alleged to
have been acquired subsequent to the
commencement of that relation, the presumption
will not apply. (Santos v National Satistics Office,
GR NO. 171129, April 6, 2011)
Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions.
The ff presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and
overcome by other evidence:
(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
(b) That an unlawful act was done with an
unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary
consequences of his voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his
concerns
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced;
(f) That money paid by one to another was due
to the latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another
belonged to the latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor
has been paid;
(i) That prior rents or installments had been paid
when a receipt for the later one is produced;
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing
taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the
taker and the doer of the whole act: - otherwise,
that things which a person possess, or exercises
acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
(k) That a 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;
(l) That a person acting in a public office was
regularly appointed or elected to it;
(m) That official duty has been regularly
performed;
(o)That all the matters within an issue raised in a
case: - were laid before the court and passed
upon by it; and in like manner that all matters
within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for
arbitration: - were laid before the arbitrators and
passed upon by them;
(p)That private transactions have been fair and
regular;
SECTION 3. Disputable Presumptions
A disputable presumption has been defined as a
species of evidence that may be accepted and
acted on where there is no other evidence to
uphold the contention for which it stands, or one
which may be overcome by other evidence.
(People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 106025,
February 9,1994)
RULE
133
SUFFICIENCY
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
AND
Sufficiency of Evidence
Sufficiency refers to the adequacy of evidence, or
such evidence in character, weight or amount as
will legally justify the judicial action demanded or
prayed for by the parties (ESPEJO, Evidence
Explained, 2019, p. 660 [hereinafter Espejo].
Weight of evidence
This refers to the balance of evidence and in
whose favor it tilts. This refers to the indication of
the greater evidence between the parties. This
depends on the judicial evaluation within the
guidelines provided by the rules and
jurisprudence (ESPEJO, supra at p. 659).
Hierarchy of Evidentiary Values
a. Proof beyond reasonable doubt – It is
required for the conviction of the accused
in a criminal case.
b. Clear and convincing evidence – This is
adduced to overcome a prima facie or a
disputable presumption.
c. Preponderance of evidence – The degree
of proof required in civil cases.
d. Substantial Evidence – Required to reach
a
conclusion
in
administrative
proceedings or to establish a fact before
administrative or quasijudicial bodies.
Preponderance of evidence, how determined.
– In civil cases, the party having the burden of
proof must establish his or her case by a
preponderance of evidence. In determining
where the preponderance (superior weight) of
evidence on the issues involved lies, the court
may consider the following:
a. All the facts and circumstances of the
case;
b. The witnesses’ manner of testifying;
c. Their intelligence;
d. Their means and opportunity of knowing
the facts to which they testify;
e. The probability or improbability of their
testimony;
f. Their interest or want of interest;
g. Personal credibility so far as the same
may legitimately appear upon the trial;
and
h. Number of witnesses, but take note that
preponderance that is not necessarily
equated with the number of witnesses
and other evidence.
Preponderance Defined
By preponderance of evidence is meant that the
evidence as a whole adduced by one side is
superior to that of the other. It refers to the weight
credit or value of the aggregate evidence on
either side and is usually considered to be
synonymous with the term “greater weight of
evidence” or “greater weight of the credible
evidence.” It is evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than
that which is offered in opposition thereto (BJDC
Construction v. Nena Lanuzo, G.R. No. 161151,
March 24, 2014).
Equiponderance of evidence (Equipoise rule)
The doctrine refers to a situation where the
evidence of the parties are evenly balanced ore
there is doubt on which side the evidence
preponderates. In such case the decision should
be against the party with the burden of proof
(Marubeni Corp. v. Lirag, G.R. No. 130998,
August 10, 2001).
Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal
case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
unless his or her guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
Definition
It simply means such proof, to the satisfaction of
the court, keeping in mind the presumption of
innocence, as precludes every reasonable
hypothesis except that which is given to support.
It is not sufficient for the proof to establish
probability, even though strong, that the fact
charged is more likely to be true than the contrary.
It must establish the truth of the fact to a
reasonable and moral certainty – a certainty that
convinces and satisfies the conscience of those
who are to act upon it (United States vs. Cristino
Reyes, G.R. No. L-1374, December 3, 1903).
Alibi v. Denial
Alibi is evidence offered by one charged with a
crime to support the statement that at the time of
if its commission, he was at a place so remote or
that the crime took place under such
circumstances that he could not possibly have
committed it.
On the other hand, a denial in a pleading or in
defense denies or traverses an allegation made
in the pleading of an adverse party or in the direct
examination by the prosecution and puts the
matter so denied in issue, to be resolved upon the
trial of the action (Decano, Annotation: Denial v.
Alibi, 624 SCRA 693, July 9, 2010).
Matters to be proved in a criminal prosecution
(corpus delicti)
1. The commission of the crime
2.
The identification of the accused as the
perpetrator of the crime. (What is needed is
positive identification made with moral certainty
as to the person of the offender)
Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient
ground for conviction. – An extrajudicial
confession made by an accused shall not be
sufficient ground for conviction, unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
1.
Effects of Judicial and Extrajudicial
Confessions
2.
A judicial confession is sufficient in itself
to sustain a conviction, even in capital offenses.
On the other hand, an extrajudicial confession is
insufficient in itself to sustain a conviction. It must
be corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti
(ESPEJO, supra at 671).
Rules Governing Extrajudicial Confessions
General rule
The extrajudicial confession of an accused is
binding only upon himself and is not admissible
against his co-accused.
Exceptions
1. Interlocking
confessions,
i.e.,
extrajudicial confessions independently
made without collusionwhich are
identical with each other in their material
respects and confirmatory of the other
(People v. Encipido, G.R. No.70091,
December 29, 1986).
2. If the co-accused impliedly adopted said
confession
by not questioning its truthfulness
(People v. Orenciada, G.R. No. 21562,
August 7, 1924).
3. Where the accused admitted the facts
stated by the confessant after being
apprised of such confession (People v.
Narciso, G.R. No. L-24484, May 28,
1968).
4. If the accused are charged as coconspirators of the crime which was
confessed by one of the accused and
said confession is used only as
corroborative evidence (People v. Linde,
G.R. No.L-10358, January 28, 1961).
5. Where the confession is used as
circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of participation by the
conspirator (People v. Condomena).
6. Where the confessant testified for his codefendant (People v. Villanueva, G.R.
No. L-12867, July 31, 1962).
7. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial
confession is corroborated by other
evidence of record (People v. Paz, G.R.
Nos. L-15052-53, August 31, 1964).
Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if:
(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.
Inferences cannot be based on other inferences.
Definition
Circumstantial evidence may be characterized as
that evidence that proves a fact or series of facts
from which the facts in issue may be established
by inference.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of
collateral facts and circumstances from which the
existence of the main fact may be inferred
according to reason and common experience
(People v. Broniola, G.R. No. 211027, June 29,
2015).
Guidelines
in
Convictions
based
on
Circumstantial Evidence
a. Circumstantial evidence should be acted
upon with caution
b. All the essential facts must be consistent
with the hypothesis of guilt
c. The facts must exclude every other
theory but that of the guilt of the accused
d. The
peculiarity
of
circumstantial
evidence is that the series of events
pointing to the commission of a felony is
appreciated not singly but collectively
(People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 157221,
March 30, 2007).
Weight to be given of opinion of expert
witness, how determined. — In any case where
the opinion of an expert witness is received in
evidence, the court has a wide latitude of
discretion in determining the weight to be given to
such opinion, and for that purpose may consider
the following:
(a) Whether the opinion is based upon sufficient
facts or data;
(b) Whether it is the product of reliable principles
and methods;
(c) Whether the witness has applied the
principles and methods reliably to the facts of the
case; and
(d) Such other factors as the court may deem
helpful to make such determination.
Substantial evidence – In cases filed before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may
be deemed established if it is supported by
substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Quantum of proof required in Amparo and
Habeas Data proceedings
If the allegations in the Petition for Writ of Amparo
are proven by substantial evidence, the court
shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs
as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the
privilege shall be denied.
Power of the court to stop further evidence. –
The court may stop the introduction of further
testimony upon any particular point when the
evidence upon it is already so full that more
witnesses to the same point cannot be
reasonably expected to be additionally
persuasive. This power shall be exercised with
caution.
The old and new provisions are the same except
that “should be” was changed to “shall be” and
the section number was changed from 6 to 7.
Requisites:
1.
Court stops the introduction of further
testimony;
2.
Evidence upon it is already full;
3.
Witnesses cannot be reasonably
expected to be additionally persuasive;
4.
Such power of court is exercised with
caution. The court has the power to stop the
introduction of testimony which will merely be
cumulative. (Guinea et. al v. Vda. De. Ramonal
et. al, G.R. No. L- 38659, February 20, 1975)
The power granted by the above proviso has the
clear caveat that this power should be exercised
with caution, more so in criminal cases where
proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for the
conviction of the accused (Go v. Looyuko, G.R.
No. 147923, October 26, 2007).
Evidence on motion. – When a motion is based
on facts not appearing of the record, the court
may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions
presented by the respective parties, but the court
may direct that the matter be heard wholly or
partly on oral testimony or depositions.
Only the section number was changed in this
provision.
Examples:
1. Motion for Bail (Under Criminal Procedure, the
evidence taken up during the hearing of the
motion will form part automatically of the records
of the case);
2. Application for preliminary attachment or
injunction;
3. Motion to dismiss founded on certain facts
which are not solely predicated on absence of
jurisdiction or failure to state a cause of action
(ESPEJO at p. 679);
4. Motion to Lift an Order of Default (must be
supported by an affidavit of merits stating fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence and a
meritorious defense);
5. Motion for Summary Judgment may be proved
based on affidavits.
While the court may hear and rule upon motions
solely on the basis of affidavits or counteraffidavits, if the affidavits contradict each other on
matters of fact, the court can have no basis to
make its findings of fact and the prudent course
is to subject the affiants to cross-examination so
that the court can decide whom to believe (Sapida
v. De Villanueva, G.R. No. L-27673, November
24, 1972).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC
Definition of terms. – For purposes of these
Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows:
(a) "Asymmetric or public cryptosystem"
means a system capable of generating a
secure key pair, consisting of a private
key for creating a digital signature, and a
public key for verifying the digital
signature.
(b) "Business records" include records of
any business, institution, association,
profession, occupation, and calling of
every kind, whether or not conducted for
profit, or for legitimate or illegitimate
purposes.
(c) "Certificate" means an electronic
document issued to support a digital
signature which purports to confirm the
identity
or
other
significant
characteristics of the person who holds a
particular key pair.
(d) "Computer" refers to any single or
interconnected device or apparatus,
which, by electronic, electromechanical
or magnetic impulse, or by other means
with the same function, can receive,
record,
transmit,
store,
process,
correlate, analyze, project, retrieve
and/or produce information, data, text,
graphics, figures, voice, video, symbols
or other modes of expression or perform
any one or more of these functions.
(e) "Digital signature" refers to an electronic
signature consisting of a transformation of an
electronic document or an electronic data
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
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; and
ii.
whether
the
initial
electronic
document had been altered after the
transformation was made.
"Digitally signed" refers to an electronic
document or electronic data message
bearing a digital signature verified by the
public key listed in a certificate.
"Electronic data message" refers to
information generated, sent, received or
stored by electronic, optical or similar means.
"Electronic document" refers to information
or the representation of information, data,
figures, symbols or other modes of written
expression,
described
or
however
represented, by which a right is established
or an obligation extinguished, or by which a
fact may be proved and affirmed, which is
received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
processed,
retrieved
or
produced
electronically. It includes digitally signed
documents and any printout or output,
readable by sight or other means, which
accurately reflects the electronic data
message or electronic document. For
purposes of these Rules, the term "electronic
document" may be used interchangeably with
"electronic data message".
"Electronic key" refers to a secret code
which secures and defends sensitive
information that crosses over public channels
into a form decipherable only with a matching
electronic key.
"Electronic signature" refers to any
distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound
in electronic form, representing the identity of
a person and attached to or logically
associated with the electronic data message
or electronic document or any methodology
or procedure employed or adopted by a
person and executed or adopted by such
person with the intention of authenticating,
signing or approving an electronic data
message or electronic document. For
purposes of these Rules, an electronic
signature includes digital signatures.
"Ephemeral electronic communication"
refers to telephone conversations, text
messages, chatroom sessions, streaming
audio, streaming video, and other electronic
forms of communication the evidence of
which is not recorded or retained.
(l) "Information
and
communication
system" refers to a system for
generating, sending, receiving, storing or
otherwise processing electronic data
messages or electronic documents and
includes the computer system or other
similar devices by or in which data are
recorded or stored and any procedure
related to the recording or storage of
electronic data messages or electronic
documents.
(m) "Key
pair"
in
an
asymmetric
cryptosystem refers to the private key
and its mathematically related public key
such that the latter can verify the digital
signature that the former creates.
(n) "Private key" refers to the key of a key
pair used to create a digital signature.
(o) "Public key" refers to the key of a key pair
used to verify a digital signature.
Construction. –These Rules shall be liberally
construed to assist the parties in obtaining a just,
expeditious, and inexpensive determination of
cases.
Electronic
documents
as
functional
equivalent of paper-based documents. —
Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term
writing,
document,
record,
instrument,
memorandum or any other form of writing, such
term shall be deemed to include an electronic
document as defined in these Rules.
What is an electronic document?
"Electronic document" refers to information or the
representation of information, data, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression,
described or however represented, by which a
right is established or an obligation extinguished,
or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed,
which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It
includes digitally signed documents and any
print-out or output, readable by sight or other
means, which accurately reflects the electronic
data message or electronic document. For
purposes of these Rules, the term "electronic
document" may be used interchangeably with
"electronic data message" (Rule 2, Section 1(h))
What
are
ephemeral
electronic
communications?
"Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to
telephone conversations, text messages,
chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming
video, and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not
recorded or retained (Rule 2, Section 1(k)).
Ephemeral Electronic Communications
Ephemeral electronic communications are now
admissible evidence, subject to certain
conditions. It may be proven by the testimony of
a person who was a party to the communications
or has personal knowledge thereof.
Admissibility. – An electronic document is
admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules
on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court
and related laws and is authenticated in the
manner prescribed by these Rules.
Requisites of Admissibility:
An electronic document is admissible in evidence
if:
1. It complies with the rules on admissibility
prescribed by the Rules of Court and related
laws; and
2. It is authenticated in the manner prescribed
by these Rules (Rule 3, Sec. 2).
Privileged communication. –The confidential
character of a privileged communication is not
lost solely on the ground that it is in the form of an
electronic document.
When copies or duplicates of a document shall be
regarded as original:
1. It is in two or more copies executed at or
about the same time with identical contents;
or
2. It is a counterpart produced by the same
matrix, or by mechanical or electronic rerecording, or by chemical reproduction, or by
other equivalent techniques which accurately
reproduces the original.
Such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as
the equivalent of the original. (REE, Rule 4, Sec.
2)
Burden of proving authenticity.—The person
seeking to introduce an electronic document in
any legal proceeding has the burden of proving
its authenticity in the manner provided in this
Rule.
Evidence must be authenticated
To authenticate the object is to show that the
object is the very thing that is either the subject
matter of the lawsuit or the very one involved to
prove an issue in the case. It is the preliminary
step in showing the admissibility of evidence
proving that the objects and documents
presented in evidence are not counterfeit.
Electronic signature.—An electronic signature
or a digital signature authenticated in the manner
prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence
as the functional equivalent of the signature of a
person on a written document.
Electronic signature refers to any distinctive
mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic
form representing the identity of a person and
attached to/or logically associated with the
electronic data message or electronic document
or any methodology or procedures employed or
adopted by a person and executed or adopted by
such person with an intention of authenticating or
approving an electronic data message or
electronic document (Rule 2, Section 1[j]).
Authentication of electronic signatures.—An
electronic signature may be authenticated in any
of the following manner:
(a) By evidence that a method or process
was utilized to establish a digital
signature and verify the same;
(b) By any other means provided by law; or
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the
judge as establishing the genuineness of
the electronic signature.
Disputable
presumptions
relating
to
electronic signatures. –Upon the authentication
of an electronic signature, it shall be presumed
that:
(a) The electronic signature is that of the
person to whom it correlates;
(b) 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; and
(c) The methods or processes utilized to affix
or verify the electronic signature
operated without error or fault.
Disputable presumptions relating to digital
signatures.—Upon the authentication of a digital
signature, it shall be presumed, in addition to
those mentioned in the immediately preceding
section, that:
(a) The information contained in a certificate
is correct;
(b) The digital signature was created during
the operational period of a certificate;
(c) No cause exists to render a certificate
invalid or revocable;
(d) The message associated with a digital
signature has not been altered from the
time it was signed; and,
(e) A certificate had been issued by the
certification authority indicated therein.
Factors for assessing evidentiary weight.— In
assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic
document, the following factors may be
considered:
(a) The reliability of the manner or method in
which it was generated, stored or
communicated, including but not limited to
input and output procedures, controls, tests
and checks for accuracy and reliability of the
electronic data message or document, in the
light of all the circumstances as well as any
relevant agreement;
(b) The reliability of the manner in which its
originator was identified;
(c) The integrity of the information and
communication system in which it is recorded
or stored, including but not limited to the
hardware and computer programs or
software used as well as programming
errors;
(d) The familiarity of the witness or the person
who made the entry with the communication
and information system;
(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; or
(f) Other factors which the court may consider as
affecting the accuracy or integrity of the
electronic document or electronic data
message.
Integrity
of
an
information
and
communication system. —In any dispute
involving the integrity of the information and
communication system in which an electronic
document or electronic data message is recorded
or stored, the court may consider, among others,
the following factors:
(a) Whether the information and communication
system or other similar device was operated
in a manner that did not affect the integrity of
the electronic document, and there are no
other reasonable grounds to doubt the
integrity
of
the
information
and
communication system;
(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; 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.
Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. —A
memorandum, report, record or data compilation
of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or
diagnoses, made by electronic, optical or other
similar means at or near the time of or from
transmission or supply of information by a person
with knowledge thereof, and kept in the regular
course or conduct of a business activity, and such
was the regular practice to make the
memorandum, report, record, or data compilation
by electronic, optical or similar means, all of which
are shown by the testimony of the custodian or
other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the
rule on hearsay evidence.
Affidavit evidence.—All matters relating to the
admissibility and evidentiary weight of an
electronic document may be established by an
affidavit stating facts of direct personal
knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic
records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the
competence of the affiant to testify on the matters
contained therein.
Cross-examination of deponent.—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.
Electronic testimony.—After summarily hearing
the parties pursuant to Rule 9, the court may
authorize the presentation of testimonial
evidence by electronic means. Before so
authorizing, the court shall determine the
necessity for such presentation and prescribe
terms and conditions as may be necessary under
the circumstance, including the protection of the
rights of the parties and witnesses concerned.
Transcript of electronic testimony.—When
examination of a witness is done electronically,
the entire proceedings, including the questions
and answers, shall be transcribed by a
stenographer, stenotypes or other recorder
authorized for the purpose, who shall certify as
correct the transcript done by him. The transcript
should reflect the fact that the proceedings, either
in whole or in part, had been electronically
recorded.
Storage of electronic evidence. —The
electronic evidence and recording thereof as well
as the stenographic notes shall form part of the
record of the case. Such transcript and recording
shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such
proceedings.
Audio, Video and Similar Evidence. —Audio,
photographic and video evidence of events, acts
or transactions shall be admissible provided it
shall be shown, presented or displayed to the
court and shall be identified, explained or
authenticated by the person who made the
recording or by some other person competent to
testify on the accuracy thereof.
Ephemeral Electronic Communication.—
Ephemeral electronic communications shall be
proven by the testimony of a person who was a
party to the same or has personal knowledge
thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such
witnesses, other competent evidence may be
admitted.
A recording of the telephone conversation or
ephemeral electronic communication shall be
covered by the immediately preceding section.
If the foregoing communications are recorded or
embodied in an electronic document, then the
provisions of Rule 5 shall apply.
Rule on Text Messages
Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence, "Ephemeral electronic
communications shall be proven by the testimony
of a person who was a party to the same or who
has personal knowledge thereof." In this case,
complainant who was the recipient of said
messages and therefore had personal knowledge
thereof testified on their contents and import.
Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone
number reflected in complainant's cellphone from
which the messages originated was hers.
Moreover, any doubt respondent may have had
as to the admissibility of the text messages had
been laid to rest when she and her counsel
signed and attested to the veracity of the text
messages between her and complainant. It is
also well to remember that in administrative
cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence
are not strictly applied (Nuez v. Cruz-Apao, A.M.
No. CA-05-18-P, April 12, 2005).
The respondent's claim that the admission of the
text messages as evidence against him
constitutes a violation of his right to privacy is
unavailing. Text messages have been classified
as ephemeral electronic communication under
Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence, and shall be proven by the testimony
of a person who was a party to the same or has
personal knowledge thereof. Any question as to
the admissibility of such messages is now moot
and academic, as the respondent himself, as well
as his counsel, already admitted that he was the
sender of the first three messages on Atty.
Madarang's cell phone (Magtolis v. Salud, A.M.
No. A-05-20-P, September 9, 2005). The
admissibility of such messages is now moot and
academic, as the respondent himself, as well as
his counsel, already admitted that he was the
sender of the first three messages on Atty.
Madarang’s cell phone (Vidallon-Magtolis v.
Salud, A.M. No. CA-05-20-P, September 9,
2005).