Chapter 1 – Basic Principles
Evidence
-
Under Section 1 of Rule 128, evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in
a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
To be considered evidence, the same must be sanctioned or allowed by the Rules of Court.
Thus, a hearsay evidence, a coerced extrajudicial confession of the accused, and an evidence
obtained in violation of the constitutional rights, even if ultimately shown to correspond the truth,
do not fall within the definition of Sec. 1 of Rule 128.
One must prove a fact, hence, a mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice.
Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. There must be a sufficient evidence to support a charge.
(Buenviaje vs. Magdamo)
The truth referred to in the definition is not the actual truth but the legal or judicial truth.
Under Section 34 of Rule 132, courts, are not even authorized to consider evidence which has not
been formally offered. While it may be the actual truth that it was Mr. X who shot Mr. Y, if the
available evidence presented and admitted in court points to Mr. Z as the culprit, then the judicial or
legal truth is that it was Mr. Z, not Mr. X, who shot Mr. Y.
Sec 4. In what cases not applicable. These rules shall not apply to election cases, land registration,
cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except
by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
Since a preliminary investigation does not finally adjudicate the rights and obligations of the parties,
probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for
crediting the hearsay. (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan)
GR. Administration agencies are not bound by the technical rules on evidence.
The following are instances in which evidence is no longer required:
1. Where the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact, a trial need not be conducted
since there is no more reason to present evidence. The case is then ripe for judicial
determination, through a judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of Court.
2. It may be dispensed with by agreement of the parties. The parties to any action are allowed by
the rules to agree in writing upon the facts involved in the litigation and to submit the case for
judgment upon the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence. (Sec 6, Rule 30)
3. On matters of judicial notice and on matters judicially admitted. (Sec. 1 & 4, Rule 129)
4. When the law presumes the truth of fact.
When, for instance, an injured passenger sues a common carrier for breach of contract of
carriage, evidence of the negligence of the defendant carrier is dispensed with. Art. 1756 of the
Civil code, establishes the presumption that, in case of death of injuries to passengers, common
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. The same presumption
applies to goods on board a common carrier are lost, destroyed or deteriorated.
5. When a rule presumes the truth of fact. Thus, a 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
6. When a fact is judicially admitted by the adverse party. An admission made by a party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
Application of Rules on Electronic Evidence
Sec. 2. Cases covered. These rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial
and administrative cases.
However, it does not apply to criminal cases.
Ephemeral communications are now admissible as evidence. It refers to telephone conversations, text
messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video and other forms of communication the
evidence of which is not recorded or retained.
Distinctions between evidence in civil cases and evidence in criminal cases.
1. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must prove his claim by a preponderance of
evidence. (Sec 1, Rule 133.) in criminal cases, the guilt of the accused has to be proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
2. In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability and is not admissible in
evidence against the offeror. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused
may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. (Sec. 27, Rule 130)
3. In civil cases, the concept of presumption of innocence does not apply. In criminal cases, the
accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence.
4. In civil cases, the evidence of moral character of a party is admissible in evidence as long as it is
pertinent to the issue of character involved in a case. (Sec. 51(b), Rule 130) in criminal cases, the
prosecution is not allowed to prove the moral character of the accused even if it is pertinent to
the moral trait involved. It can only do so in rebuttal. (Sec. 5 (a) (2), Rule 130)
5. The rule on disqualification by reason of death or insanity applies only to civil cases or special
proceedings, not to criminal cases.
6. The privileged communication rule on physician-patient relationship has reference only to civil
cases, not to criminal cases. (Sec. 24 © Rule 130)
7. The rule on admission by conspirator applies only to criminal cases, not to civil cases. (Sec 30,
Rule 130)
8. The rule on extrajudicial confession applies to the accused in a criminal cases, not to the
defendant in civil cases. (Sec. 3, Rule 133)
Factum probandum
-
Is the fact to be proved, it is the fact which is in issue in a case and to which the evidence is
directed.
Factum probans
-
Is the probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in issue
Thus, if P claims to have been injured by the negligence of D, who denies having been negligent, the
negligence of D that cause the injuries of P constitutes the factum probandum of the suit. The
evidence offered by P whether it be object, documentary or testimonial, constitutes the materials to
prove the liability of D. the totality of the evidence to prove the liability refers to the factum probans.
In a suit for collection of sum of money, in the absence of any admission by the defendant, the
factum probandum of the plaintiff would be:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The existence of the debt of the defendant
The maturity of the debt
The demand made by the plaintiff upon the defendant to pay and
The failure to pay despite the demand.
Where the defendant, denies a material allegation in the complaint, the material matter denied
becomes the factum probandum, the fact to be established.
In a criminal case, when the accused pleads not guilty, the factum probandum refers to the matter
that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to justify a conviction, i.e, the
corpus delicti.
Corpus delicti – body or substance of the crime.
Since the corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime, the court has ruled that even a
single witness’ uncorroborated testimony, if credible, may suffice to prove the corpus delicti and
warrant a conviction for the offense charged. Corpus delicti may even be established by
circumstantial evidence.
Drug, itself, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense.
Waiver of the rules on evidence
1. When an otherwise objectionable evidence is not objected to, the evidence becomes admissible
because of a waiver.
2. Where a party fails to object to hearsay evidence, the same becomes admissible. But the court
will most probably not consider the same as credible.
Admissibility of evidence
Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules.
For evidence to be admissible, 2 elements must concur,
1. The evidence is relevant
2. The evidence is not excluded by the rules (competent)
Illustrations
1. The testimony, although relevant, is not admissible because the witness was not testifying based
on his personal knowledge of the event. (relevant but incompetent)
2. If a defense witness testifies having actually seen the alleged victim fire a gun at the accused
without the latter’s provocation, the testimony of the eyewitness is competent on the matters
testified to are relevant to the plea of self-defense. (relevant and competent)
3. Extrajudicial confession when made during custodial investigation, is inadmissible when made in
violation of a person’s Miranda rights,
Relevant evidence (BAR)
1. Under sec 4 of rule 128, evidence, to be relevant must have such a relation to the fact in issue as
to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
2. The fact in issue must be a disputed fact, hence evidence offered to prove an undisputed fact is
irrelevant and such is inadmissible.
Test for determining the relevancy of evidence
1. The test is one of logic, common sense and experience.
Collateral matters
-
Connotes an absence of a direct connection between the evidence and the matter in dispute.
Jurisprudence considers motive as generally immaterial, not being an element of the offense.
However, motive becomes important when the evidence on a commission of the crime and the
identity of the perpetrator are purely circumstantial.
When collateral matters are allowed
1. As a rule, evidence on collateral matters is not allowed. (Sec. 4, rule 128)
2. A collateral matter may be admitted if it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
Illustration:
Although evidence of character is generally inadmissible, the accused may prove his good moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
Relevance of evidence on the credibility of a witness, determination of credibility
1. In every proceeding, the credibility of the witness is always an issue because it has the inherent
tendency to prove or disprove the truthfulness of his assertion and consequently, the probative
value of the proffered evidence.
2. The importance of the credibility of a witness in a judicial proceeding is highlighted by rules
which allow the adverse party to test such credibility through a process called crossexamination.
3. Jurisprudence has held that the determination of the credibility of the witness is best left to the
trial court which had the opportunity to observe the deportment of the witness while testifying.
Competent evidence
-
It is one that is not excluded by law or by rules of court.
if the evidence is not allowed, it is incompetent.
However, when applied to a witness, the term competent, refers to the qualification of the
witness.
Competent of electronic evidence
-
It is competent and is admissible if it complies with the rules on admissibility under the rules of
court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed under the rules on
electronic evidence.
Admissibility and weight (probative value) of the evidence
1. Admissibility refers to the question of whether or not the evidence is to be considered at all.
Probative value of the evidence refers to the question of WON it proves an issue.
2. The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of
evidence pertains to its tendency to convince and persuade.
Multiple admissibility (BAR)
1. There are times when proffered evidence is admissible for two or more purposes. Thus,
depending upon the circumstances, the declaration of a dying person may be admissible for
several purposes. It may be offered as a dying declaration, part of res gestae, or declaration
against interest. (Sec 37, 38, 42, Rule 130) either of which is an exception to the hearsay rule.
2. The statement by a bus driver immediately after the collision, that he dozed off in the wheel
while driving, may be admissible as an admission under sec. 26, rule 130 or part of the res
gestae under sec. 42, rule 130.
3. Evidence is inadmissible for one purpose but admissible for another or vice versa. Evidence of a
person’s bad general reputation is objectionable if offered to prove that he committed the crime
charged but it may be admissible to impeach the credibility of a witness under the authority of
sec. 11, rule 132.
4. Evidence may also be admissible against one party but not against another. An extrajudicial
statement of a robbery suspect is admissible against his co-accused under the res inter alios acta
rule but may be admissible against the declarant himself as an admission pursuant to sec. 26,
rule 130.
Conditional Admissibility (BAR)
-
The relevance of the piece of evidence is not apparent at the time it is offered but the relevance
of which will readily be seen when connected to other pieces of evidence not yet offered. The
proponent may ask the court that the evidence be conditionally admitted in the meantime,
subject to the condition that he is going to establish its relevancy and competency at a later
time. Failure of which, the court, may, upon motion of the adverse party, strike out from the
record the evidence that was previously conditionally admitted.
Curative admissibility
1. This doctrine allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer the
opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence.
2. The doctrine should not be invoked where evidence was properly admitted.
3. Following the concept of curative admissibility, the court may be asked to give the defendant the
chance to contradict or explain his alleged past acts and to show evidence of his past acts of
diligence to counteract the prejudice which the improperly admitted evidence may have caused.
Direct and circumstantial evidence (BAR 2011)
1. Direct evidence proves a fact without drawing any inference from another fact.
2. Circumstantial or indirect evidence is the exact opposite of direct evidence. When the evidence
is circumstantial, a fact is established by making an inference from a previously established fact.
3. When the fingerprints of the accused are found in a crime scene of murder, such prints
constitutes circumstantial evidence that he was in the same scene.
Conviction by circumstantial evidence (BAR)
1. There is no requirement in our jurisdiction that only direct evidence may convict. (Bacerra vs.
People, Gr. No. 204544)
2. Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis from which the court may
draw its findings of guilt. Resort to circumstantial evidence is sanctioned by Rule 133, Section 4,
Rules of court.
3. In a criminal case, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction provided the
following requisites concur:
a. There is more than one circumstance;
b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. (Sec. 4, Rule 133) All the circumstances must be consistent with one
another, and they are to be taken together as proved.
Cumulative evidence and corroborative evidence
1. Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the same kind and character as that already given
which tends to prove the same proposition. When a witness testifies that he saw the event
testified to and two other witnesses testify having seen the same event which the first witness
claimed he saw, the subsequent testimonies constitute cumulative evidence.
2. Corroborative evidence is one that is supplementary to that already given tending to strengthen
or confirm it. It is additional evidence of a different character to the same point. Thus, if W
testifies that the gun marked as Exhibit A was the weapon used by the accused in the shooting
of the victim, the findings of the crime laboratory that the gun bears only the fingerprints of the
accused corroborates the testimony of W.
3. A witness claims that he saw Mr. X sign the document subject of the action. Mr. X denies the
authenticity of his signature but evidence by a handwriting expert that the signature is indeed of
Mr. X is corroborative evidence. Here, we have testimonial evidence from an eyewitness, and a
testimony from an expert who did not personally witness the signing of the document.
4. Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to suspect that the witness
falsified the truth or that his observations are inaccurate.
Positive and negative evidence
1. Evidence is said to be positive when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of facts
does exists or that a certain event happened. It is negative when the witness states that an event
did not occur or that the state of facts alleged to exist does not actually exists.
2. Thus, the testimony of W that he saw P fire a gun at the victim is a positive evidence. The
testimony of W that he could not have fired the gun because he was not armed during the
incident is a negative evidence.
3. The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an indication of a possibility or even of a
probability but not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun.
4. Denial, as a defense, can only prosper when substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
Competency of a witness distinguished
1. The competency of a witness differs from his credibility. A witness may be competent, and yet
give incredible testimony. He may be incompetent and yet his evidence, if received is perfectly
credible.
2. Credibility refers to worthiness of belief, that quality which renders a witness worthy of belief.
(believability)
Admissible evidence and credible evidence, admissibility of evidence and probative value
1. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or rules.
2. The testimony of a person who has been convicted of perjury may be admitted into the records
owing to the absence of an objection. However, it is highly doubtful that the court would
consider his testimony worthy of belief.
3. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at
all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an
issue.
Inadmissible evidence in relation to arrest, searches and seizures (BAR)
1. The court declared as inadmissible evidence the marijuana found in the possession of the
accused as a product of an illegal search and not being an incident to a lawful arrest.
2. The marijuana is incompetent evidence because its seizure was illegal, not incidental to a lawful
arrest.
Some jurisprudential tenets on probative value and credibility
1. The testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to produce a conviction.
2. A medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as
the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. It is
merely corroborative in character.
3. Findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great
respect because the trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as
they testify.
4. Minor inconsistencies in the narration of facts which pertain only to trivial, collateral and
inconsequential matters, do not affect the credibility of the witness. These inconsistencies are
treated as badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood.
Miscellaneous doctrines
1. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – false in one thing, false in everything. It is applied to the
testimony of a witness who may be considered unworthy of belief as to all the rest of his
evidence if he is known to have testified falsely in one detail.
Alibi, denial (BAR)
1. Positive identification prevails over alibi since the latter can be easily fabricated and is inherently
unreliable.
2. Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive
declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of an accused in the crime attributed to
him.
3. Denial is a self-serving negative evidence.
4. While the defense of alibi is by nature a weak one, it assumes significance and strength where
the evidence for the prosecution is also intrinsically weak.
5. Alibi may serve as a basis for acquittal if it can really be shown by clear and convincing evidence
that it was indeed physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission.
6. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly made.
Delay and initial reluctance in reporting a crime
1. The delay in the filing of the complaint would not impair the credibility of the complainant if
such delay is satisfactorily explained.
Flight or non-flight of the accused
1. Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt. However, when flight is unexplained, it is a
circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn.
Chapter 4 – Object and Documentary Evidence
Object Evidence (Rule 130)
Types of evidence
1. Object evidence
2. Documentary evidence
3. Oral evidence
Documentary and object evidence before being admitted in evidence, have to be identified and
authenticated. Thus, need to be sponsored by a witness.
While testimonial evidence may stand alone even without a documentary or object evidence, the
credibility of the testimony may be reinforced and enhanced when consistent with the document
and the object.
When the witness asserts that he never sold his land to the plaintiff, but the defendant offers in
evidence a duly notarized deed of sale executed by the plaintiff, the testimonial evidence loses its
credibility.
Nature of Object evidence
Sec. 1. Object as evidence. Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court.
When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the
court.
It is a real thing or tangible things like a gun, a broken glass, a piece of bloody clothing or the
detective ladder that caused the fall of the plaintiff.
An object evidence will enable the court to have its own firsthand perception of the evidence.
Even a human being may be a form of real evidence.
Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth and it ranks high in our hierarchy of
trustworthy evidence. Where the physical evidence runs counter to the testimonial evidence, the
physical evidence should prevail.
Requisites for admissibility of object evidence
1.
2.
3.
4.
The evidence must be relevant;
The evidence must be authenticated;
The authentication must be made by a competent witness and
The object must be formally offered in evidence.
For the object not to be excluded by the rules, the same must pass the test of authentication.
Every evidence needs a witness. This is because a witness can only testify to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge, that is which are derived from his own perception. (Sec. 36,
Rule 130)
As a rule, the formal offer of evidence is particularly a vital act before the admission of evidence
because the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. (Sec. 34, Rule
132)
Object evidence and the right against self-incrimination (BAR)
-
The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked against object evidence.
Demonstrative evidence
1. Example of which is a map, a diagram, photograph, and a model.
2. Photographs of persons, things and places when instructive to the understanding of the
case, will be admitted in evidence.
Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, photographic evidence of events, acts or
transactions shall be admissible in evidence provided that:
a. It shall be presented, displayed and shown to the court, and
b. It shall be identified, explained or authenticated by either the person who made the
recording or some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
The admissibility of photographs is within the discretion of the trial court.
3. Motion pictures and recordings – courts then would require detailed testimony as to the
qualifications of the operator, a detailed description of the equipment used, and the
conditions under which the photograph and the recording were taken.
Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the authentication process need not involve the
person who actually made the recording. 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. Hence, authentication
can be done by some other person other than by the person who made the recording or took
the photograph as long as he can testify as to its accuracy. (Sec. 11, rule 11, Rules on Electronic
Evidence)
4. Text messages – it is to be proved by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same
or has personal knowledge of them. It applies to telephone conversations and other
ephemeral electronic communication. In the absence or unavailability of the required
witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted. (Sec. 2, Rule 11, Rules on Electronic
evidence)
View of an object or scene
1. Under Sec. 1, Rule 130, when an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
2. Courts have recognized that there are times when a party cannot bring an object to the
court for viewing in the courtroom. Hence, the court may make an ocular inspection of a
contested land to resolve questions of fact raised by the parties.
3. It is well-recognized that the court has an inherent power to order a view when there is
a need to do so. (Sec. 5, Rule 135 RoC)
4. An inspection or view outside the courtroom should be made in the presence of the
parties or at least with previous notice to them.
Categories of object evidence
1. Objects that have readily identifiable marks (unique objects)
2. Objects that are made readily identifiable (objects made unique)
3. Objects with no identifying marks (non-unique objects)
If the object has a unique characteristic like the serial number of a caliber .45 pistol, it
becomes readily identifiable.
Chain of custody in general
1. The chain of custody means that it must be established that the item subject of the
offense is the same substance offered in court as exhibit.
2. The prosecution must show that there was no planting, adulteration, switching or
contamination of the evidence from the time of its confiscation to its presentation in
court.
3. To ascertain that the integrity and identity of the seized item are preserved with
moral certainty.
4. The forensic chemist, if a public officer, need not testify to identify and describe how
the report was made. This is because the chemistry report is a public document and
as such it is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and
genuiness.
Chain of custody in drug cases (Sec. 21 of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002, BAR)
1. Procedure is embodied in Sec. 21, par. 1, Art. II of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640.
Section 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002", is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
"(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a
physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of
the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever
is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
"x x x
"(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by
the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the
subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the
completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall
be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be
examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be
issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification;
"x x x."
In seizures covered by search warrants, the physical inventory and photograph must be conducted at
the place where the search warrant was served. While in case of warrantless seizures, such as a buy-bust
operation, the physical inventory and photography shall be done at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.
Links in the chain of custody
1. First, the seizure and marking of the confiscated drugs recovered from the accused, if practicable, by
the apprehending officer,
2. Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer.
3. Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination, and
4. Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug by the forensic chemist to the court.
Importance of the marking of the evidence
1. Failure of the authorities to immediately marked the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt
on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.
2. Marking means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials
and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link
3. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from all other related
evidence. Thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.
Effect of non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165, prosecution has burden of proof
1. Non-compliance casts doubts on the integrity of the seized items and creates reasonable doubt
on the guilt of the accused.
2. However, non-compliance with the procedures set in Sec. 21 would not ipso facto render the
seizure and custody over the drugs as void and invalid. What is essential is the preservation of
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.
3. For the seize items to be admissible despite non-compliance with the chain of custody, the law
requires the prosecution to establish the following:
a. The non-compliance must be because of justifiable grounds and
b. The apprehending officer/team must have properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items.
In which case, the prosecution loses the benefit of invoking the presumption of regularity.
DNA evidence
1. In the case of People vs. Vallejo, a rape-slay case of a 9 year old girl, admitted in evidence the
DNA sample of the victim which were found in the bloodstained garments of the accused.
Vaginal swabs taken from the victim were also admitted and were found to show the DNA
profile of the accused who was subsequently convicted. Vallejo is considered by the court to
be the first real breakthrough of DNA as admissible and authoritative evidence in the
Philippine jurisprudence.
Vallejo adopted the following guidelines to be used by courts in assessing the probative
value of DNA evidence:
a. How the samples were collected
b. How they were handled
c. The possibility of contamination of the samples
d. The procedure followed in analyzing the samples
e. Whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests,
and
f. The qualification of the analysts who conducted the test. (BAR)
2. People vs. Yatar, significantly upheld the constitutionality of the compulsory DNA testing and
rejected the contention that it would infringe on the constitutional right against selfincrimination. The case recognize the DNA testing and the admissibility of its results as
evidence.
Rules on DNA Evidence
1. A.M. 06-11-05-SC. The Rule on DNA Evidence is the primary rule to be applied whenever
DNA evidence is offered, used or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in:
a. Criminal actions
b. Civil actions and
c. Special proceedings.
2. A person who has a legal interest in the litigation may file an application for DNA testing
order before the appropriate court, at any time. (Sec. 4, RDE)
3. The court may motu proprio order a DNA testing. (Sec. 4, RDE)
4. The grant of DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into
evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result of the
testing. The court will still have to evaluate the probative value of the proposed evidence
before its admission.
If a person has already been convicted under a final and executory judgment, may he still avail of DNA
testing? (BAR 2012)
-
He may still have DNA testing. The test after his conviction is termed as “post-conviction” DNA
testing. SEC 6 of RDE allows a post-conviction DNA testing. It may be available to the
prosecution, or the person convicted by a final and executory judgment, provided that the
following requirements are met:
a. Biological sample exists
b. Such sample is relevant to the case and
c. The testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of
conviction.
Post DNA testing may be available without need of prior court order.
What remedy is available to the convict if the results of the post DNA testing are favorable to
him?
-
He may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the court of origin. The court shall then
conduct a hearing and in case the court finds, after due hearing, that the petition is meritorious,
it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless
his detention is justified for a lawful cause. (Sec. 10, RDE)
Are the DNA profiles of a person open to public scrutiny?
-
No. Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any information concerning a DNA
profile without the proper court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court wherein
such DNA evidence was offered, presented or sought to be offered and presented. (Sec. 11, RDE)
Paraffin test
-
Have been considered as inconclusive by the court because scientific experts concur in the view
that paraffin tests gave proved extremely unreliable in use.
Polygraph tests (Lie detector tests)
1. Courts, rejects the results of polygraph test when offered in evidence in establishing the guilt or
innocence of the accused because it has not yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and
accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception.
Documentary evidence (Rule 130)
2 categories of documents as evidence
a. Writings or (written contracts and wills)
b. Any other material containing modes of written expressions.
Sec. 2. Documentary evidence. Documents as evidence consists of writings or any material containing
letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols, or other modes of written expressions offered as proof of
their contents.
When a contract is presented in court to show that it exists or simply to establish its condition, it is not
offered to prove its contents. The contract, therefore, is not considered a documentary evidence but an
object or real evidence.
Documents under the Rules on Electronic Evidence (BAR)
1. Sec. 1, rule 2 on Rules on Electronic Evidence
“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”.
2. Whether it be the information itself or its representation, for the document to be deemed
“electronic”, it is important that it be received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed,
retrieved, or produce electronically.
3. Electronic document is one that may be used for any of the following purposes:
a. To establish a right
b. To extinguish an obligation or
c. To prove or affirm a fact. (Sec. 1 (h) Rule 2)
4. Since an electronic document is the functional equivalent of a paper based document, whenever
a rule of evidence makes reference to the terms of a writing, document, record, instrument,
memorandum or any other form of writing, such terms are deemed to include electronic
documents. It is therefore, but logical to consider the rules on evidence in the rules of court,
including statutes containing rules of evidence, to be of suppletory application to the Rules on
Electronic Evidence in all matters not specifically covered by the latter. (Bar 2003, 2010)
5. Sec. 1, Rule 5.
Section 1. 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.
6. Section 2. Manner of authentication. – Before any private electronic document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, 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;
(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; or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
It will apply only when the document is a private electronic document and the same is offered as
an authentic document.
7. Section 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. – 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.
Requisites for admissibility of documentary evidence
1.
2.
3.
4.
The document must be relevant
The evidence must be authenticated
The document must be authenticated by a competent witness and
The document must be formally offered in evidence.
Best evidence Rule (Bar)
1. Definition is in Sec. 3 of Rule 130, RoC
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is
the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document
itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been 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;
(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; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
office. (2a)
2. It is the “original document” rule or the “primary evidence” rule.
3. It only applies when the evidence is documentary. It covers situation in which the subject of
inquiry is the contents of the document.
4. In other words, one who wants to prove the contents of a document need to present the original
document.
Purpose of the Rule (BAR)
1. the avoidance of dangers of mistransmissions and inaccuracies of the contents of the document.
2. Best evidence rule ensures that the exact contents of a document are brought before the court.
Waiver of the rule
It may be waived if not raised in the trial. Although the marriage certificate, the marriage license
and other pieces of documentary evidence were only photocopies, the fact that these have been
examined and admitted by the trial court, with no objections as to their authenticity and due execution,
means that these documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts contained therein.
When document is merely collaterally in issue
-
The best evidence rule does not apply here. A document is collaterally in issue when the purpose
of introducing the document is not to establish its terms, but to show facts that have no
reference to its contents like its existence, condition, execution or delivery.
How to apply the best evidence rule
1. The best evidence rule applies when the contents of the document is the subject of the inquiry.
Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, the best
evidence rule does not apply. Testimonial evidence may then be admissible.
2. What if for some reason the original cannot be presented in evidence?
- The 2nd step comes into play. It involves
a. Finding an adequate legal excuse for the failure to present the original
b. Presenting a secondary evidence allowed by the rules of court.
Present the original, except when you can justify its unavailability in the manner provided for by
the rules of court.
For the best evidence rule to apply, two requisites must concur:
1. The subject matter must involve a document and
2. The subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document.
Illustration is in page 162-164 of riano book.
Best evidence rule is properly invoked when the counsel asked the witness as to what contains the
marriage contract when sponsors signed it. Here, counsel is trying to prove some contents in the
marriage contract through oral testimony without producing the original document.
Excuses for not presenting the original document (BAR)
1. Sec 3. Rule 130 RoC
a. When the original has been 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
c. When the original consists if 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 and
d. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence in case of loss, destruction or unavailability of
the original
1. Secondary evidence is an evidence other than the original instrument or document itself.
2. Sec. 5, Rule 130, secondary evidence may be admitted only by laying the basis for its production.
Specifically, by requiring the compliance of the following:
1. The offeror must prove the existence and execution of the original document
2. The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability such as the loss or destruction of the
original and
3. The offeror must show the unavailability was not due to his bad faith.
The presentation then of the secondary evidence should be in the following order:
1. A copy of the original
2. A recital of the contents of the document in some authentic document or
3. By testimony of witnesses. (Sec. 5, Rule 130)
Illustration
A case of 2 women who claimed to be the legal spouse of the same man. The respondent (1st
wife), having not to shown a marriage certificate due to destruction of the records of marriage
during the second world war, she submitted the following secondary evidences:
a. Certificate of her marriage to her husband issued by the parish priest of the place where the
marriage was solemnized
b. Birth certificates of her children by her husband
c. Certificate of baptism of one child indicating that he was born to respondent and her
husband
d. testimony of respondent herself and
e. testimony of the sister of her husband as to the fact of the marriage.
The court ruled that pieces of evidence offered established the fact of marriage of respondent to
the man she claimed to be her husband. The marriage of petitioner to the same man, was
declared null and void.
Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be proven as relevant evidence other than
the marriage certificate. Hence, even a person’s birth certificate may be recognized as
competent evidence of the marriage between his parents.
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when the original is in the custody or
control of the adverse party
1. that the original exists
2. that said document is under the custody or control of the adverse party
3. that the proponent of secondary evidence has given the adverse party reasonable notice to
produce the original document and
4. that the adverse party failed to produce the original document despite reasonable notice.
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. The notice may be in the form of a motion for
the production of the original, or made in open court in the presence of the adverse party or via
a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party in custody of the original has sufficient time to
produce the same.
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when the original consists of numerous
accounts
1. under this exception, secondary evidence is admissible
a. if the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents
b. such accounts or documents cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and
c. the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole.
An accountant’s written summary of 150,000 sales invoices for goods sold by the plaintiff may be
allowed under this exception despite objection of the defendant that the sales invoices
constitute the original documents and should be presented.
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when the original document is a public
record
1. it is a certified true copy of the original. The certified copy is to be issued by the public
officer in custody of the public records. (Sec. 7, rule 130)
Effect of not offering a document in evidence after calling for its production and inspection
-
Sec. 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. A party who calls for the production
of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence.
Meaning of original (BAR)
1. Sec. 4. Rule 130
Section 4. Original of document. —
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with
identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one being copied from
another at or near the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded
as originals. (3a)
To be considered as originals under this provision, certain requisites must be complied with:
a. There must be entries made and repeated in the regular course of business, and
b. The entries must be made at or near the time of the transaction.
Thus, each newspaper sold in the stand is an original in itself.
Originals under the Rules on Electronic Evidence (BAR)
1. Under Sec. 1, Rule 4 on the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the original of the electronic
document is its printout or output readable by sight or other means, provided it is shown to
reflect the date accurately.
Section 1. 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, shown to reflect the data accurately.
2. Section 2. 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, or is a counterpart
produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical
or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques
which is accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as
the equivalent of the original. Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not
be admissible to the same extent as the original if:
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy in lieu of the
original.
Original printout of facsimile transmissions (BAR)
Is the printout of a facsimile transmission an electronic date message or electronic document?
-
The court, concluded that the terms “electronic data message” and “electronic document” as
defined under the Electronic commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission and
cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original
under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.
Parol Evidence Rule (Rule 130)
Contracts and the parol evidence rule
1. It applies only to contracts which the parties have decided to set forth in writing. Hence, when
the agreement is merely oral, the parol evidence rule should not be applied.
2. When they execute a written contract, the parol evidence rule ipso facto comes into play. Under
Sec 9. Rule 130,
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — 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,
between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)
Application of the parol evidence rule (BAR)
1. Is embodied in Sec. 9, Rule 130, RoC
2. As used in the Rules of Court, the term refers not only to oral but also to written evidence which
are outside of or extraneous to the written contract between the parties.
3. The parol evidence rule becomes operative when the issues in the litigation are the terms of a
written agreement.
4. Parol evidence is, however, barred when the writing is a total integration of the agreements.
5. The parol evidence rule, therefore, 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.
6. It does not apply to persons who are not parties to a deed and do not base their claim on it.
7. Only the parties and successors-in-interest are bound by the parol evidence rule.
When and how to introduce parol evidence
1. The rule prohibiting parol evidence is not absolute. A party may present evidence when he
desires to modify, explain, or add to the terms of the written agreement by putting in issue in
the pleadings any of the following:
a. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement
b. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto
c. The validity of the written agreement or
d. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-interest after the
execution of the written agreement. (Sec. 9, rule 130)
Example.
The deed of sale stipulated a contract price of P700,000.00 but the actual oral agreement was
only P400,000.00, an amount already paid. The amount as written in the deed of sale was
actually a result of mere inadvertence. If buyer wants to prove during the trial that the true price
as agreed was P400k, he must allege in his answer to the complaint that there was a mistake in
the writing and it does not reflect the true agreement of the parties. Such allegations would put
such matters in issue in the pleading, opening the door to the introduction of parol evidence.
2. Where the ambiguity is patent or extrinsic, parol evidence will not be admitted even if the same
is put in issue in the pleading.
3. As long as the latent or intrinsic ambiguity is raised as an issue in the pleadings, the court will
allow evidence aliunde to explain the ambiguity to give effect to the intention of a party or the
parties.
Mistake and imperfection in the writing and failure to express the true agreement of the parties
(Bar)
1. The admission of evidence aliunde may be justified when there is a mistake or imperfection in
the written agreement. This mistake or imperfection must be put in issue in the pleading by the
party who wants to prove the defect in the writing.
Failure to object to the parol evidence presented by the adverse party operates as a waiver of the
protection of the parol evidence rule.
Authentication and Proof of documents (Bar)
Public and Private documents
1. Sec. 19, Rule 132
Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence,
documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to the entered
therein.
All other writings are private.
Assumed to be included in this class of public documents are those acknowledged before an officer,
other than a notary public, authorized to administer oaths. In the case of a public record of a private
document required by law to be entered in a public record, the public document does not refer to the
private document itself but the public record of that private document.
Proof of private document
1. Sec. 20, rule 132
Section 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
When authentication of a private document is required (BAR)
1. Sec. 20, Rule 132
2. To recognize the execution and genuineness of a private document is to rely on the personal
knowledge of a witness.
3. The second mode, the witness testifies or shows evidence that the signature or handwriting of
the maker is genuine.
Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. — Where a private
document is more than thirty years old, is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be
found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other
evidence of its authenticity need be given.
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may be proved
by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person
write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged,
and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the
handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings
admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
It does not require expert testimony to prove the handwriting of a person.
A public document is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and
genuineness, and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.
Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and
certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document
involved.
Section 23. Public documents as evidence. — 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. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave
rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.
Section 26. Irremovability of public record. — Any public record, an official copy of which is
admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of
a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case.
Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of
Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or
by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by
a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, 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, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
Section 27. Public record of a private document. — An authorized public record of a private
document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian
of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.
Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. — The party producing a document as genuine
which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the
question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He may show that the alteration was made by
another, without his concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or was
otherwise properly or innocent made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language
of the instrument. If he fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence.
Section 29. How judicial record impeached. — Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence
of: (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer, (b) collusion between the parties, or (c)
fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.
Chapter V. Testimonial Evidence
A. Qualifications of Witnesses
Nature of testimonial or oral evidence
1. It is evidence elicited from the mouth of a witness as distinguished from real and documentary
evidence. (Black’s Law Dictionary.)
2. The person who gives the testimony is called a witness.
3. When applied to a witness, competence means the witness is qualified to take the stand and
testify.
4. It is a legal truth that identification precedes authentication. Without a witness, no evidence can
ever be authenticated. Even the so-called “self-authenticating documents” need a witness to
identify the document.
Presumption in favor of competence of a witness
-
A party who desires to question the competence of a witness must do so by making an objection
as soon as the facts tending to show incompetency are apparent.
Qualifications of a witness
1. Sec. 20, Rule 130
Sec. 20. Witnesses, their qualifications. – Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all
persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be a
witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless
otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification.
2. The above provision supplied the basic qualifications of a witness, namely:
a. He can perceive, and
b. He can make known his perception to others,
c. He must take either an oath or an affirmation and
d. He must not possess any of the disqualifications imposed by law or rules.
Oath or affirmation
1. SECTION 1. Examination to be done in open court. — The examination of witnesses
presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and under oath or affirmation.
Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of
answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. Affirmation
2. A person is not qualified to be a witness if he is incapable of understanding the duty to tell
the truth.
Ability to perceive
1. A witness must be able to perceive an event.
2. Sec. 36, Rule 130
SEC. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. – A
witnesses can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is,
which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
Ability to make known perception to others
1. It involve two factors
a. Ability to remember what has been perceived and
b. Ability to communicate the remembered perception.
2. Deaf-mutes are competent where they can,
1. Understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath,
2. Comprehend facts they are going to testify to and
3. Communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter.
Competency and Credibility (BAR)
1. SEC. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. – Except as provided in the next succeeding section,
all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others,
may be witnesses. Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or
conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification. (18a)
2. SEC. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. – The following
persons cannot be witnesses: (a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their
production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known
their perception to others; (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them
incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them
truthfully. (19a)
3. SEC. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. – During their marriage, neither the
husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected
spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. (20a)
4. SEC. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. – Parties or
assignors of parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case if prosecuted, against an
executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person
of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or
against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring
before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
(20a)
5. SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. – The following persons
cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the
other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or
ascendants;(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to
any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course
of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney’s secretary,
stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer,
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity;(c) A
person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case,
without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by
him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a
professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in that
capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient;(d) A minister or priest
cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any
confession made to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course
of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs;(e) A public
officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public
interest would suffer by the disclosure.
6. Under the rules of court, persons covered by the Survivorship Disqualification Rule (Dead
Man’s Statute) cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death or insanity
of the adverse party. (Sec. 23, Rule 130). This rule is directed to the issue of competency of a
witness, not his credibility.
7. Drug abuse will not render a person incompetent to testify. Drug abuse becomes relevant
only if the witness was under the influence of drugs at the time he is testifying or at the time
the events in question were observed. While bias and drug abuse may not be grounds for
barring a witness from testifying, they may serve as grounds for attacking the credibility of a
witness. BAR
8. Questions concerning the credibility of a witness are best addressed to the sound discretion
of the trial court as it is in the best position to observe his demeanor and bodily movements.
Factors that do not affect the competency of a witness (BAR 2011)
1. Under sec. 20, Rule 130, the following do not constitute a disqualification of a witness:
a. Religious belief
b. Political belief
c. Interest in the outcome of the case or
d. Conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law.
Note: Those who have been convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false
testimony are disqualified from being a witness to a will. (Art. 821 (2), Civil Code, BAR)
2. The relationship of a witness with a party does not ipso facto render him a biased witness in
criminal cases where the quantum of evidence is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is
no reason why the same principle should not apply to a civil case where the quantum of
evidence is only preponderance of evidence. (BAR)
Disqualification of a Witnesses
Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity
1. Sec. 21 (a) of Rule 130
Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity. The following persons cannot be a
witness.
a. Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such
that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others
2. The above rule establishes the rule that the mental incapacity of a witness at the time of his
perception of the events subject of the testimony does not affect his competency as long as
he is competent at the time he is produced for examination to make known his perception to
others.
3. An intellectually disabled person is not, solely by this reason, ineligible from testifying in
court. He or she can be a witness, depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she
knows. If an intellectually disabled victim’s testimony is coherent, it is admissible in court.
Disqualification by reason of immaturity
1. Sec. 21 (b) of Rule 130
Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of immaturity. The following persons cannot be a
witnesses:
a. Xxxx
b. Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the
facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully
2. In disqualification by reason of immaturity, the incompetence of the witness must occur at
the time he perceives the event including his incapability to relate his perceptions truthfully.
Child witness, meaning (Bar)
1. A child witness is any person who, at the time of giving testimony, is below the age of 18
years.
2.
Competency of a child witness, presumption, competency examination
1. Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness.
2. The competency examination of a child witness is not open to public. Only the following are
allowed to attend the examination:
a. The judge and necessary court personnel,
b. The counsel for the parties
c. The guardian ad litem
d. One or more support persons for the child and
e. The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be fully evaluated in his
absence. (Sec. 6 ©, Rule on Examination of Child Witness)
3. The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if there is
substantial likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of the
accused, 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. (Bar 2005)
Survivorship disqualification rule or the dead man’s statute (Bar 2001)
1. Detailed in Sec. 23 of Rule 130
Sec. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. Parties or assignors of
parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or
administrator or other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound
mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such
person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of
such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
2. This rule applies only to a civil case or a special proceeding over the estate of a deceased or
insane person.
3. The following are the elements for the application of this rule.
a. The suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of said deceased or person of
unsound mind,
b. The defendant in the case is the executor or administrator or a representative of the
deceased or the person of unsound mind,
c. The witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of that party, or a person in whose behalf the case
is prosecuted and
d. The subject of the testimony is as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such
deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. (Sec. 23, rule 130)
4. Illustration is in page 220 of Riano’s book 2019 edition.
How to apply the rule
1. The persons entitled to invoke the protection of the dead man’s statute are the executor,
administrator, and any other representative of a deceased person, when they are the defendants
in a claim against the estate of the deceased.
2. It may also be invoked by a person of unsound mind in a claim filed against him.
3. The incompetency imposed upon the witness is to testify “on any matter of fact occurring before
the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
4. Witness who testify on the basis of their knowledge of a transaction, not based on their dealings
with the deceased, are not barred.
5. The survivorship disqualification rule is intended to benefit the estate of the deceased or the
insane person, hence, this protection may be waived by a a. failing to object to the testimony, or
b. cross-examining the witness on the prohibited testimony or by c. offering evidence to rebut
the testimony. (Bar)
Marital Disqualification Rule (Spouse immunity) (Bar)
1. Sec. 22, Rule 130
Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage. During their marriage, neither the husband nor
the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except
in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against
the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.
2. To preserve the marriage relations and promote domestic peace.
3. This rule does not cover illicit cohabitation.
4. Illustration is page 226 of Riano book 2019 edition
5. The testimony is admissible where no objection is interposed by the spouse who has the right to
invoke the prohibition. In other words, benefit of the rule may be waived and it may be done so
impliedly or expressly.
Exceptions to the marital disqualification rule
1. In a civil case by one against the other or
2. In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other, or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants. (Sec. 22, rule 130)
3. In the case of Ordono v. Daquigan, allowing the wife to testify against her husband who was
accused of raping his daughter. Here, the court concluded that a rape perpetrated by the father
against his daughter is a crime committed by him against his wife.
4. Illustration on page 228 of Riano book 2019
Chapter VI - Hearsay evidence, opinion evidence and character evidence
Hearsay evidence (BAR)
Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge, hearsay excluded. A witness can
testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge, that is, which are derived
from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
Hearsay evidence, generally not admissible
1. Hearsay evidence refers to evidence offered by a witness in court to prove the truth of a
fact, not based on his personal knowledge, but on the knowledge of another person who is
not in the witness stand.
2. Hearsay may be oral or written
Basis for excluding hearsay
1. An affidavit is merely hearsay evidence where its affiant/maker did not take the witness
stand.
2. While affidavits that have been notarized are public documents if they are acknowledged
before a notary public, these are still considered hearsay unless the affiants themselves are
placed in the witness stand to testify thereon.
When evidence is a hearsay
1. Lack of personal knowledge of the truth of the fact asserted by a witness
2. In People vs. DeMArco, hearsay is defined “as an out of court statement offered for the truth
of the matter asserted”.
Specific elements of hearsay evidence
1. First, there must be an out of court statement. It may be oral or written.
2. Second, that the statement made out of court is repeated and offered by the witness in
court to prove the truth of the matters asserted by the statement.
3. Illustration is in page 313-314
4. Newspaper clippings are hearsay if they were offered for the purpose of proving the truth of
the matter alleged.
Examples of non-hearsay evidence
1. A statement having probative worth simply by virtue of the fact that it was uttered, if
relevant to a material fact in issue, is not hearsay and is generally admissible.
2. Where a statement is not offered for the truth of the contents of the conversation but only
to show that it was made, then the statement is not hearsay.
Independently relevant statements (BAR)
1. The statements are admissible for some relevant reason independent of their truth or falsity.
They are relevant because the statement itself is either the very fact in issue or a
circumstantial evidence of a fact in issue.
2. If the testimony given by a witness in court regarding a statement made by another person is
offered for the purpose of establishing the truth of the fact asserted, the testimony is clearly
hearsay. However, if the purpose is merely to establish the fact that the statement or the
tenor of such statement, was made, the testimony is not hearsay.
3. Newspaper accounts of an incident are hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the accounts
but are not hearsay if offered for a purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted. The
newspaper account is admissible only to prove that there was a publication and merely the
tenor of the news, but not its truth.
Exceptions to the hearsay rule
1. Dying declarations (Sec. 37, rule 130)
2. Declaration against interest. (Sec. 38, rule 130)
3. Act or declaration about pedigree. Sec 39, rule 130
4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. Sec. 40, rule 130
5. Common reputation. Sec. 41
6. Part of the res gestae. Sec. 42
7. Entries in the course of business. Sec. 43
8. Entries in official records. Sec. 44
9. Commercial lists and the like. Sec. 45
10. Learned treatises. Sec. 46
11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. Sec. 47
They are hearsay evidence but they are deemed admissible hearsay for certain reasons.
Dying declaration (BAR)
1. Sec. 37. Dying declaration. The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
2. It is considered an evidence of the highest order and is entitled to the utmost credence since
no person aware of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation.
3. There must be a consciousness of an impending death.
4. Illustration on page 332-335
Elements of a dying declaration BAR
1. In People vs. Gatarin and People vs. Badillos, the elements are
a. The declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the
declarant’s death,
b. It is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a
consciousness of an impending death
c. The declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived and
d. The dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the
declarants death.
2. Where the declarant is publicly known to be untruthful in his words and conduct, the
credibility of his declaration at the point of death may adversely be affected and he does not
by a sudden twist of circumstance, become immaculate because of his having made a dying
declaration.
Part of the res gestae BAR
1. Means things done
2. Those circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and
which are admissible when illustrative of such act.
3. Illustration is on page 340
Res gestae under the Rules of Court
1. Section 42. Part of res gestae. — Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence
is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying
an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as
part of the res gestae.
2. In spontaneous exclamations or statements, the res gestae is the startling occurrence
whereas in verbal acts, the res gestae are the statements accompanying the equivocal act.
Spontaneous statements
1. To be admitted, must have the following characteristics
a. There is a startling event or occurrence taking place
b. A statement was made while the event is taking place, or immediately prior to, or
subsequent there
c. The statement was made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a
falsehood
d. The statement relates to the circumstances of the startling event or occurrence or that
the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending
circumstances
Basis of admissibility
1. The admissibility of a spontaneous statement is anchored on the theory that the
statement was uttered under circumstances where the opportunity to fabricate is
absent.
2. An elderly lady who screamed while pointing at the man who clubbed the guy in the
park from behind, illustrates a spontaneous statement clearly well.
3. Not every statement made under the influence of the startling event is admissible even
if it be spontaneous. The statement must describe the event perceived.
4. If it does not, it is not admissible as exception to the hearsay rule. Sec. 42 of rule 130,
requires that the statement be with respect to the circumstances of the startling
occurrence.
5. A declaration made spontaneously after a startling occurrence is deemed as part of the
res gestae when
a. The principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence
b. The statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise a
falsehood
c. The statements concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances.
Verbal acts
1. To be admissible, the following requisites must be present,
a. The principal act to be characterized must be equivocal
b. The equivocal act must be material to the issue
c. The statement must accompany the equivocal act and
d. The statement gives a legal significance to the equivocal act.
2. If the act is clear, it needs no explanation and so there is no res gestate to speak of.
Entries in the course of business (Business Records rule)
1. Section 43. Entries in the course of business. — Entries made at, or near the time of
transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a
position to know the facts therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, 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.
2. Requisites are
a. The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify
b. The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer
c. The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries
d. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether
legal, contractual, moral or religious and
e. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
3. Sec. 1 & 2, Rule 8, Rules on Electronic Evidence
Declaration against interest
1. Section 38. Declaration against interest. — The declaration made by a person deceased, or
unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact is asserted in the declaration
was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest, that a reasonable man in
his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may be
received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third persons.
2. A statement by the debtor before he died that he owes the creditor a sum of money, or an oral
acknowledgement by the principal that he received the money previously entrusted to his agent,
are clear declarations against the interest of the person making the statement.
3. The declaration must be a declaration against interest. If the declaration is favorable to the
interest of the declarant, it is a mere self-serving statement and does not fall as an exception to
the hearsay rule.
Declaration about pedigree.
1. Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. — The act or declaration of a person deceased,
or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or
marriage, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and the
relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates
when and the places where these fast occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces also
facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree.
2. To be admissible,
a. The declarant is dead, or unable to testify
b. The declarant is related by birth or marriage to the person whose pedigree is in issue
c. The declaration was made before the controversy and
d. The relationship between two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. Sec. 39, rule 130.
Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
1. Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. — The reputation or tradition
existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its
members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the
family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books or charts,
engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree.
Common reputation
1. Section 41. Common reputation. — Common reputation existing previous to the controversy,
respecting facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old, or respecting marriage
or moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public places may
be received as evidence of common reputation.
2. It is a hearsay but is admissible because of trustworthiness
Entries in official records
1. Section 44. Entries in official records. — Entries in official records made in the performance of
his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
2. Illustration is on page 357
Commercial lists and the like
1. Section 45. Commercial lists and the like. — Evidence of statements of matters of interest to
persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register, periodical, 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.
Learned treatises
1. Section 46. Learned treatises. — A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of
history, law, science, or art is admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein
if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the
statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as
expert in the subject.
Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
1. Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. — The testimony or deposition of
a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against
the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him.
Exception to the hearsay rule in child abuse cases
1. Under section 28 of the rule on examination of a child witness, a hearsay statement of a child
which under the Rules of Court, is not admissible for being hearsay because the facts testified to
are not within his personal knowledge, may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or noncriminal proceeding.
2. the testimony is admissible provided the same be offered in child abuse cases and the statement
made by the child is one describing any act or attempted act of child abuse.
3. Sec. 28 (b), rule on examination of a Child Witness
Opinion Evidence
Section 48. General rule. — The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as indicated in the
following sections. (42)
Section 49. Opinion of expert witness. — The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown to posses, may be received in evidence.
(43a)
Section 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is
given, may be received in evidence regarding —
(a) the identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of
a person.
Admissibility of opinion evidence BAR
1. As a rule, the opinion of a witness is inadmissible. (Sec. 48.) This is because when a witness
testifies, a witness does so only with respect to facts personally observed by him and it is for the
court to draw conclusions from the facts testified to.
When opinion evidence is admissible, expert testimony (BAR)
1. Sec. 49
2. The court is not however, bound by the opinion of an expert such as a handwriting expert.
Opinion of an ordinary witness, when admissible (BAR)
1. His testimony may be admitted in evidence provided that the proper basis of the opinion is given
and the subject of the opinion is any of the following matters:
a. The identity of a person about whom the witness has adequate knowledge,
b. The handwriting of a person with which the witness has sufficient familiarity
c. The mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted, and
d. The impressions of the witness of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
person.
Character evidence
1. Character evidence, as a rule, not admissible. (Sec. 51, rule 130)
2. Character is generally irrelevant in determining a controversy because the evidence of a person’s
character or trait is not admissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with such
character or trait in a particular occasion.
Evidence of bad moral character of the accused (BAR)
1. In a criminal case, the prosecution cannot prove the bad moral character of the accused in its
evidence-in-chief. It can only do si in rebuttal. (Sec. 51 (a)(2), rule 130)
2. Where the accused proved his good moral character pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged, he opens the door to the prosecution to prove that his moral character is, in
fact, bad. Then and only then may the prosecution prove the bad moral character of the
accused.
Sec. 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions
a. In criminal cases:
1. Xxxx
2. Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
3. Xxxx
Evidence of good moral character of the accused (BAR)
1. The accused may prove his good moral character when pertinent to the moral trait involved in
the offense charged. (Sec. 51 (a)(1), rule 130
2. When the accused presents proof of his good moral character, this strengthens the presumption
of innocence and where good character and reputation are established, an inference arises that
the accused did not commit the crime charged.
Sec. 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions
a. In criminal cases:
1. The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged.
Evidence of character of the offended party
1. The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved by the accused if it tends
to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
(Sec. 51 (a) (3), rule 130
Sec. 51. Xxxx
a. In criminal cases:
1. Xxx
2. Xxx
3. The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
-
Where it was established that the alleged victim was morally loose and apparently uncaring
about her chastity, the court found the conviction of the accused doubtful.
Sexual abuse shield rule in child sexual abuses cases
1. The following evidence, is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child
sexual abuse under the sexual abuse shield rule:
a. Evidence to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior, and
b. Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim. (Sec 30. Rule on
Examination of a Child witness)
2. Under this rule, the accused is not allowed to prove the bad moral character of the offended
party. However, evidence of any of the above is admissible to prove that a person other than the
accused was the source of semen, injury or other physical evidence.
Character evidence in civil cases
-
Evidence of the moral character of a party is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of
character involved in the case. (sec 51 (b), rule 130)
Evidence of good character of a witness
-
It is not admissible until such character has been impeached. (Sec 14, rule 132, sec 51 ©, rule
130
It is error for counsel to offer evidence of the good character of his witness who is presented in
court for the first time since he could not have been previously impeached.
Chapter VII – Offer of evidence and trial objections (Rule 132)
Sec 34. Offer of evidence. The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The
purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
Sec. 35. When to make offer. As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time
the witness is called to testify.
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the presentation of a party’s testimonial
evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing.
Sec. 36. Objection. Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is
made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be
made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within 3 days after notice of the offer unless a
different period is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified.
Sec. 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. When 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, whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be
necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his continuing
objection to such class of questions.
Sec. 38. Ruling. The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made, unless the
court desires to take reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented, but the ruling shall
always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an
opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated. However, if the
objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them
must specify the ground or grounds relied upon.
Sec. 39. Striking out answer. — Should a witness answer the question before the adverse party had the
opportunity to voice fully its objection to the same, and such objection is found to be meritorious, the
court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be stricken off the record.
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers which are incompetent,
irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by
the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence
excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal circumstances of the
witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.
Importance of offer of evidence (BAR)
1. An evidence must be formally offered. Under the rules of court, the court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered. (Sec. 34, rule 132)
Marking of a document, not a formal offer
1. A document, or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it is simply marked for
identification, it must be formally offered, and the opposing counsel given an opportunity to
object to it or cross-examine the witness called upon to prove or identify.
2. Identification of a documentary evidence is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by
the marking of the evidence as an exhibit while formal offer as an exhibit is done when the party
rests its case.
When formal offer of evidence is not required
1. In a summary proceeding, because it is a proceeding where there is no full-blown trial
a. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial notice of
b. Documents, affidavits and depositions used in rendering a summary judgment,
c. Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi-judicial or administrative cases
d. Lost objects previously marked, identified, described in the record, and testified to by
witnesses who had been subjects of cross-examination is respect to said objects. (BAR)
2. However, the court may allow the admission of evidence not formally offered as in People vs.
Napat-a, where evidence not formally offered was held to be allowable provided certain
requirements are present:
a. The evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded, and
b. The same must have been incorporated in the records of the case.
When evidence is to be offered
1. As regards the testimony of the witnesses, the offer is to made at the time the witness is called
to testify. (Sec. 35, Rule 132)
2. For documentary and object evidence, they are to be offered after the presentation of a party’s
testimonial evidence. The offer is orally made unless allowed by the court to be in writing. (Sec.
35, Rule 132)
3. Illustration on page 374
4. The SC ruled that a party is not deemed to have waived objection to admissibility of documents
by his failure to object to the same when they were marked, identified and then introduced
during the trial. This is because objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it
is formally offered and not earlier.
5. It is when the accused fails to object to the admissibility of certain times during their formal
offer, that is he is deemed to have waived his right against their admissibility.
How an offer is made
1. When a party makes a formal offer of his evidence, he must state the nature or substance of the
evidence and the specific purpose for which the evidence is offered. Sec. 34, Rule 132 BAR
Objections, purpose BAR
1. To keep out inadmissible evidence that would cause harm to a client’s cause.
2. To protect the record, i.e, to present the issue of inadmissibility of the offered evidence in a way
that if the trial court rules erroneously, the error can be relied upon as a ground for a future
appeal.
3. To protect a witness from being embarrassed on the stand or from being harassed by the
adverse counsel
4. To expose the adversary’s unfair tactics like his consistently asking obvious leading questions
5. To give the trial court an opportunity to correct its own errors and, at the same time, warn the
court that a ruling adverse to the objector may supply a reason to invoke a higher court’s
appellate jurisdiction,
6. To avoid a waiver of the inadmissibility of an otherwise inadmissible evidence.
General and specific objections BAR
1. The following are considered general objections
a. Objection! The evidence is incompetent.
b. Objection” Inadmissible.
c. Objection! Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial
d. Objection! Improper
2. They are general for they do not clearly indicate to the judge the ground upon which the
objections are predicated.
3. Specific objection is always preferred over a general objection.
Formal and substantive objections BAR
1. A formal objection is one directed against the alleged defect in the formulation of the question.
Ex. Ambiguous questions, leading and misleading questions, repetitious questions, multiple
questions, argumentative questions.
2. A substantive objection is one made and directed against the very nature of the evidence, i.e, it
is inadmissible either because it is irrelevant or incompetent or both. Ex. Parol, not the best
evidence, hearsay, privileged communication, opinion, res inter alios acta.
Objections must be timely
1. The objection must be made at the earliest opportunity
a. If the evidence is offered orally, objection to the evidence must be made immediately after
the offer is made. (Sec. 36, par. 1, rule 132)
b. An objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of the witness
shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent. (Sec. 36,
par. 2, rule 132
c. An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within 3 days after notice of the offer
unless a different period is allowed by the court. (Sec. 36 par. 3, rule 132)
2. Objections cannot be made for the first time on appeal.
3. When counsel is quick to answer before objection of other party is raised, counsel should
request the judge to direct the witness to allow opposing counsel to object prior to his answer.
4. Sec. 39, rule 132
Striking out an answer or testimony
1. A motion to strike may be availed of in the following:
a. When the answer is premature,
b. When the answer of the witness is irrelevant, incompetent or otherwise improper
c. When the answer is unresponsive
d. When the witness becomes unavailable for cross-examination through no fault of the crossexamining party or
e. When the testimony was allowed conditionally and the condition for its admissibility was not
fulfilled.
2. Illustration is on page 381 of the riano book
Waiver of the objections, belated objections BAR
1. Even assuming ex gratia argumenti that certain documents are inadmissible for being hearsay,
the same may be admitted on account of failure to object thereto.
Extent of waiver for failure to object
1. It only involves waiver of objection to two matters, namely: the relevance and the competence
of the evidence.
2. Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is
not excluded by the law or these rules.
3. The admissibility of hearsay evidence, when not objected to, should not, in any case, be
confused with the credibility or the weight of the admitted evidence.
4. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value, unless the proponent can
show that it falls within the exception to the hearsay rule.
- If as a result of the failure of the trial court to promptly rule upon a motion to strike a confession
from the record, the accused has been deprived of the opportunity to present evidence in
rebuttal of such confession, that fact should be brought to the attention of the trial court
through the appropriate motions.
Repetition of objections
1. Instead of repeating the objection, it is sufficient for the objection to be recorded as a continuing
objection to such class of objectionable questions. (Sec. 37, rule 132)
Tender of excluded evidence (offer of proof)
1. Sec. 40. Tender of excluded evidence. If documents or things offered in evidence are excluded
by the court, the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record. If the
evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.
2. Reasons for tender of excluded evidence
a. First, to allow the court to know the nature of the testimony or the documentary evidence
and convince the trial judge to permit the evidence or testimony.
b. Second, even if he is not convince to reverse his earlier ruling, the tender is made to create
and preserve a record for appeal.
3. Illustration on page 390
4. Sec. 40, rule 132
Formal offer of evidence and formal offer of proof BAR
1. Formal offer of evidence refers either to the offer of the testimony of a witness prior to the
latter’s testimony, or the offer of the documentary and object evidence after a party has
presented his testimonial evidence. Loosely, it has been referred to as formal offer of exhibits
where object and documentary evidences are to be offered.
Chapter 2 – BURDEN OF PROOF, QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS
A. Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence
Burden of Proof (BAR)
1. Section 1. Burden of Proof. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the
facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by
law.
2. He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.
3. Hence, the person who alleges payment has the burden of proving that payment has indeed
been made.
Test for determining where burden of proof lies
1. Is to ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers no evidence competent to show the
facts averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to obtain.
2. The burden of proof rests with the party who wants to establish a legal right in his favor.
Where burden of proof is fixed
1. The claim of the plaintiff, which he must prove, is spelled out in his complaint. The defendant’s
defenses, which he must, likewise, prove are found in his answer to the complaint.
Burden of evidence BAR
1. The burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow the
prima facie evidence against him.
2. In illegal possession of firearms, the prosecution has the burden of proving the accused’s lack of
authority to have a firearm. The prosecution having proved that the accused was not issued a
firearm license, the burden of evidence was then shifted to appellant to prove his authorization
to possess a firearm.
3. When the accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to
the defense and it becomes incumbent upon the accused to prove the elements of self-defense.
Equipoise rule or equiponderance doctrine BAR, rule of lenity
1. The equipoise doctrine is based on the principle that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law.
2. It refers to a situation where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, or there is doubt on
which side of the evidence preponderates, the decision should be against the party with the
burden of proof.
3. Illustration is on page 66
4. Where the evidence admits of two interpretations, one of which is consistent with guilt, and the
other with innocence, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt and should be acquitted.
5. The rule of lenity is when the court is faced with two possible interpretations of a penal statute,
one that is prejudicial to the accused and another that is favorable to him, the rule calls for the
adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the accused.
Presumptions
Concept of presumption
1. A presumption is an inference of the existence or non-existence of a fact which courts are
permitted to draw from proof of other facts.
2. A presumption is not evidence.
3. A presumption is an inference which is mandatory unless rebutted.
4. Illustration is on page 68
Meaning of conclusive presumptions BAR
1. Conclusive (presumptions juris et de juri) or
2. Disputable (presumptions juris tantum)
3. A presumption is conclusive when the presumption becomes irrebutable upon the presentation
of the evidence and any evidence tending to rebut the presumption is not admissible.
4. A presumption is disputable or rebuttable if it may be contradicted or overcome by other
evidence. Sec. 3, rule 131
5. When evidence that rebuts the presumption is introduced, the force of the presumption
disappears.
Conclusive presumptions under rules of court BAR
1. Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately
led to another to believe a particular thing true, and 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
commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them.
2. It is based on doctrine of estoppel.
Estoppel
-
An admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be
denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
Disputable presumptions under the rules of court
1. A presumption that “official duty has been regularly performed. Sec. 3 (m), Rule 131
2. To overturn the above presumption, evidence must be presented to prove either of two things,
namely; 1. That the officers were not properly performing their duty, that they were inspired by
any improper motive.
3. The presumption applies only when there is no showing of non-compliance.
Presumption of regularity cannot overcome presumption of innocence
-
-
In case of conflict between the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty of police
officers and the presumption of innocence of the accused, the latter must prevail as the law
imposes upon the prosecution the highest degree of proof of evidence to sustain conviction.
The presumption of regularity does not apply in writ of amparo
Presumption of regularity in custodial investigation
-
Even if the confession of the accused is gospel truth, if it was made without the assistance of
counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had
been voluntarily given.
Examples of disputable presumption BAR
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following 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;
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in
the lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
(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;
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration;
(t) That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue
and at the place where the instrument is dated;
(u) That a writing is truly dated;
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail;
(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still
lives, he is considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an
absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years
shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among
the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has not
been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
(2) A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities, and has been missing for
four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has
not been known for four years;
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present may contract
a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already death.
In case of disappearance, where there is a danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided,
an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent
marriage. However, in any case, before marrying again, 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, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law
or fact;
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits
of life;
(z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneship;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage;
(bb) That 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, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry.
(cc) That 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, property or
industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and
evidences of credit are equal.
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three
hundred days after such termination of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence
of proof to the contrary:
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage
is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the three
hundred days after the termination of the former marriage.
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage
is considered to have been conceived during such marriage, even though it be born within the three
hundred days after the termination of the former marriage.
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or published by public authority, was
so printed or published;
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of
the country where the book is published, contains correct reports of such cases;
(ii) That 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;
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity, such as
wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular
circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities
resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived;
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have
survived, if the sex be the same, the older;
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to
have survived.
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other,
as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the
same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time.
-
-
Illustration is in page 77
If a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it, taking advantage of
it and profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the material author of the
falsification.
Res ipsa loquitor
Quantum of evidence
Proof beyond reasonable doubt
1. In criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the guilt of the accused lies with the prosecution
because of the presumption that the accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven.
2. It is a degree of proof that, after investigation of the whole record, produces moral certainty in
an unprejudiced mind of the accused culpability.
3. When there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, there must be an acquittal.
4. Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly.
Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
Preponderance of Evidence
1. Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party having
burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where
the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may
consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their
intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their
interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may
legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though
the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.
2. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is
offered in opposition thereto.
Substantial evidence BAR
1. Section 5. 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.
2. Allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Likewise, charges based on mere
suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.
3. In disbarment proceedings, substantial evidence is required.
4. In a petition for writ of amparo, substantial evidence is required.
Effect on the criminal case of the decision in the administrative case and vice versa
1. It is a fundamental principle that administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for
the same act or omission. Thus, an absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an
administrative prosecution, or vice versa.
Clear and convincing evidence BAR
1. Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or
conviction as to allegations sought to be established.
2. This standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than
preponderance of evidence. The potential extradite must prove by clear and convincing evidence
that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the estradition
court.
Evidentiary weight of electronic evidence
1. Section 1. 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. (Sec 1, rule 7, Rules on electronic evidence)
Chapter III - Judicial Notice and Judicial Admissions
Judicial Notice
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of
government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the
world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of
legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of
time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)
Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of
public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions. (1a)
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing 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.
Function of judicial notice
-
When the court take judicial notice of a matter, the court accepts and recognizes the same
without necessity of formal proof. Evidence shall be dispensed with because the matter is so well
known and is of common knowledge not to be disputable.
When judicial notice is discretionary BAR
1. Sec. 2, rule 129
Judicial notice and knowledge of the judge BAR
1. Sec. 2, rule 129
2. Nut judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not
judicial knowledge of the court and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a
fact, not generally or professionally known as the basis of his action.
3. A judge may not take judicial notice of a fact which he personally knows if it is not part of the
evidence or not a fact generally known within its territorial jurisdiction.
Stage when judicial notice may be taken
-
The court can take judicial notice of a fact during or after trial pursuant to the procedure in Sec.
3, rule 129
Judicial notice of foreign laws, doctrine of processual presumption (BAR)
1. Well-settled in our jurisdiction that out courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Foreign
laws must be alleged and proved, in the absence of proof, the foreign law will be presumed to be
the same as the laws of the jurisdiction hearing the case under the doctrine of processual
presumption.
Judicial notice of the law of nations
1. Being part of the law of the land, they are technically in the nature of local laws and hence,
subject to a mandatory judicial notice under Sec. 1, rule 129
Judicial notice of municipal ordinances BAR
1. Municipal trial courts should take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the
municipality in which they sit.
Judicial admissions
1. Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written, made by the party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made.
2. A judicial admission made by the parties in a pleading or in the course of the trial or other
proceedings in the same case, are conclusive upon the party making the admission and require
no proof. They are legally binding on the party making the admission.
3. An admission made in another judicial proceeding will not be deemed a judicial admission in
another case where the admission was not made. Instead, it will be considered an extrajudicial
admission for the purpose of the other proceeding where such admission is offered.
4. Section 2. Pre-trial agreement. — All agreements or admissions made or entered during the
pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel,
otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. The agreements covering the matters
referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by the court.
5. A party may make judicial admissions in the pleadings, during trial, either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations or in other stages of the judicial proceedings.
Admissions in pleadings and motions BAR
1. It is settled that admissions made by the parties in the pleadings, or in the course of other
proceedings in the same case, are conclusive and do not require further evidence to prove them.
2. Admissions made in the pleadings of a party are deemed judicial admissions.
3. Material averments in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated
damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. (Sec. 11, Rule 8)
4. Illustration on page 106 of riano book
Implied admissions of actionable documents
1. When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, the genuineness and due
execution of the same instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under
oath, specifically denies them and sets forth what he claims to be the facts. (Sec 8, Rule 8)
2. The failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document does not
preclude a party from arguing the document by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise,
payment, statute of limitations, estoppel and want of consideration.
Admissions in the pre-trial of criminal cases BAR
1. Section 2. Pre-trial agreement. — All agreements or admissions made or entered during the
pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel,
otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. The agreements covering the matters
referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by the court.
Admissions in amended pleadings BAR
-
When a pleading is amended, the amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends
and the admissions in the superseded pleading may be received in evidence against the pleader.
(Sec. 8, Rule 10)
Nature of admissions in superseded pleadings
-
It has been held that admissions in a superseded pleadings are to be considered as extrajudicial
admissions which must be proven and must be formally offered in evidence.
Admissions in dismissed pleadings
-
Are merely extrajudicial admissions
Sworn statement of a proposed state witness
-
If the motion to discharge an accused as a state witness is denied, his sworn statement,
submitted to support the motion, shall be inadmissible in evidence. (Sec. 17, Rule 119)
Effect of judicial admissions
1. Sec. 4, Rule 129
a. They do not require proof, and
b. They cannot be contradicted because they are conclusive upon the party making it.
How judicial admissions may be contradicted
1. Sec. 4, Rule 129
a. By showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake or
b. By showing that no such admission was made.