EVIDENCE
OBJECT EVIDENCE
RULE 130 A
OBJECT EVIDENCE
• Those addressed to the senses of the court [Sec. 1, Rule 130]
• A person’s appearance, where relevant, is admissible as object evidence, the same being
addressed to the senses of the court
• An ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible
• The right against self-incrimination cannot be invoked against object evidence
OBJECT EVIDENCE
• View of an object or scene
•
The inspection or view outside the courtroom should be made in the presence of the parties or at least with
previous notice to them in order that they may show the object to be viewed. Such inspection or view is a part
of the trial, inasmuch as evidence is thereby being received, which is expressly authorized by law.
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF
OBJECT EVIDENCE
• Basic requisites for admissibility
•
a. Evidence must be relevant;
•
b. Evidence must be authenticated by a competent witness;
•
c. Object must be formally offered [Sec. 34, Rule 132]
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF
OBJECT EVIDENCE
• RELEVANT
• General rule: When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court [Sec. 1, Rule 130]
• Exceptions: Court may refuse exhibition of object evidence and rely on testimonial
evidence alone if—
•
a. Exhibition is contrary to public policy, morals or decency;
•
b. It would result in delays, inconvenience, unnecessary expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of
such object; [People v. Tavera, G.R. No. L-23172 (1925)]
•
c. Evidence would be confusing or misleading;
•
d. The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented clearly portrays the object in question as to
render a view thereof unnecessary.
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF
OBJECT EVIDENCE
• COMPETENT AND AUTHENTICATED
• Evidence must be authenticated
•
To authenticate the object is to show that the object is the very thing that is either the subject matter of the
lawsuit or the very one involved to prove an issue in the case.
• Authentication must be made by a competent witness
•
The witness must have the capacity to identify the object as the very thing involved in the litigation.
•
A witness can testify only to those facts which he/she knows of his/her personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his/her own perception [Sec. 22, Rule 130]
REQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY
OF TAPE RECORDING
• a. A showing that the recording was capable of taking testimony
• b. A showing that the operator of the recording device is competent
• c. Establishment of the authenticity and correctness of recording
• d. A showing that no changes, deletions, or additions have been made on the recordings
• e. A showing of the manner of preservation of the recording
• f. Identification of speakers
• g. A showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of
inducement
CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
• a. Actual physical or “autopic” evidence – those which have a direct relation or part in
the fact or incident sought to be proven and those brought to the court for personal
examination by the presiding magistrate;
Unique Objects
Objects that have readily identifiable
marks; or Exhibit identifiable visual
or physical peculiarities
E.g., gun with a serial number or
Car with a dent on its left bumper
Objects made unique
Objects with no unique
characteristic but are made readily
identifiable by law enforcers upon
retrieval or confiscation
E.g.,sachet of shabu with initials of
the police officer who retrieved it
Non-unique objects
Objects with no identifying marks
and cannot be marked
E.g., narcotic substances, bodily
fluids
CATEGORIES OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
• b. Demonstrative Evidence - Those which represent the actual or physical object (or event in
case of pictures or videos) being offered to support or draw an inference or to aid in
comprehending the verbal testimony of a witness.
• Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible
provided it shall be:
•
•
1. shown, presented or displayed to the court, and
2. identified, explained or authenticated
•
i. by the person who made the recording, or
•
ii. by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof. [Sec. 1, Rule 11, Rules on Electronic Evidence]
• Note: reenactments are object evidence because they are exhibited, examined and viewed by
the court. E.g. a person who hears a man cat-call a woman, and mimics the cat-call in court is
reenacting the event. He is not testifying because he was not declaring anything nor making a
statement.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUG CASES
• “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. [Sec. 1(b), Dangerous Drugs Board Resolution No. 1 (2002)]
• As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit
be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the
next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUG CASES
• As a general rule, four links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item must be
established:
•
a. first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer;
•
b. second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
•
c. third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and
•
d. fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
[People v. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590 (2017)]
CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN DRUG CASES
• Note: If the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to
change, that foundation need only consist of testimony by a witness with knowledge that
the evidence is what the proponent claims; otherwise, the chain of custody rule has to be
resorted to and complied with by the proponent to satisfy the evidentiary requirement of
relevancy. And at all times, the source of amorphous as well as firmly structured objects
being offered as evidence must be tethered to and supported by a testimony.
• In the case at hand, the chain of custody rule does not apply to an undetonated grenade
(an object made unique), for it is not amorphous and its form is relatively resistant to
change. A witness of the prosecution need only identify the hand grenade, a structured
object, based on personal knowledge that the same contraband or article is what it
purports to be — that it came from the person of accused-appellant
DNA EVIDENCE
• When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime or from the
victim’s body for the suspect’s DNA. This is the evidence sample. The evidence sample is then
matched with the reference sample taken from the suspect and the victim. The purpose of DNA
testing is to ascertain whether an association exists between the evidence sample and the
reference sample. The samples collected are subjected to various chemical processes to
establish their profile. The test may yield three possible results:
•
a. Exclusion – The samples are different and therefore must have originated from different sources. This conclusion
is absolute and requires no further analysis or discussion;
•
b. Inconclusive – It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the test, whether the samples have similar DNA
types. This might occur for a variety of reasons including degradation, contamination, or failure of some aspect of the
protocol. Various parts of the analysis might then be repeated with the same or a different sample, to obtain a more
conclusive result; or
•
c. Inclusion – The samples are similar, and could have originated from the same source. In such a case, the samples
are found to be similar, the analyst proceeds to determine the statistical significance of the similarity [People v. Vallejo,
G.R. No. 144656 (2002)].
DNA EVIDENCE
• Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a
paternity case, contrary to the belief of respondent in this action, will not violate the right
against self-incrimination.
• Meaning of DNA
•
“DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body. The
totality of an individual’s DNA is unique for the individual, except identical twins.
•
“DNA evidence” constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other genetic information directly generated
from DNA testing of biological samples.
•
“DNA testing” means verified and credible scientific methods which include the extraction of DNA from biological
samples, the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison of the information obtained from the DNA testing of
biological samples for the purpose of determining, with reasonable certainty, whether or not the DNA obtained from
two or more distinct biological samples originates from the same person (direct identification) or if the biological
samples originate from related persons (kinship analysis).
DNA EVIDENCE
• Application for DNA testing order
• The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal
interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to
the parties upon a showing of the following:
•
•
1. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
•
•
3. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
•
5. The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy of integrity of the DNA
testing.
2. The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously
subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require confirmation for good reasons;
4. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case;
and
• Exception: DNA testing may be done without a prior court order, at the behest of any party (including law
enforcement agencies), before a suit or proceeding is commenced [Sec. 4, Rule on DNA Evidence]
DNA EVIDENCE
• Post-conviction DNA testing; remedy
• Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, without need of prior court order, to the
prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that:
•
1. a biological sample exists;
•
2. such sample is relevant to the case; and
•
3. the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction. [Sec. 6, Rule on DNA
Evidence]
• The medical evidence clearly established that Carmela was raped and, consistent with this,
semen specimen was found in her. It is true that Alfaro identified Webb in her testimony as
Carmela's rapist and killer but serious questions had been raised about her credibility. At the
very least, there exists a possibility that Alfaro had lied. xxx If, on examination, the DNA of the
subject specimen does not belong to Webb, then he did not rape Carmela. It is that simple.
DNA EVIDENCE
• Remedy if the results are favorable to the convict
•
The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the
results of the postconviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict.
•
In case the court, after due hearing finds the petition to be meritorious, if shall reverse or modify the judgment
of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause.
•
A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member of said
courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the
appropriate orders. [Sec. 10, Rule on DNA Evidence]
DNA EVIDENCE
• Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence and admissibility
• In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall consider
the following:
•
1. The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they were handled, and
the possibility of contamination of the samples;
•
2. The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the advantages
and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the
tests;
•
3. The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards setting institution and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience
of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established; and
•
4. The reliability of the testing result, as provided in Sec. 8 [Sec. 7, Rule on DNA Evidence]
DNA EVIDENCE
• Rules on evaluation of reliability of the DNA testing methodology
• In evaluating the results of DNA testing, the court shall consider the following:
•
1. The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence;
•
2. The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other evidence presented in the case; and that
•
3. DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the
value of the Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as
corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher there shall be a
disputable presumption of paternity. [Sec. 9, Rule on DNA Evidence]
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
RULE 130 B
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
• Consist of writings, recordings, photographs, or any material containing letters, words,
sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of written
expressions offered as proof of their contents. [Sec. 2, Rule 130] If offered for some
other purpose, they constitute object evidence.
• Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or
videos. [Sec. 2, Rule 130]
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
• a. The document must be relevant;
• b. The evidence must be authenticated;
• c. The document must be authenticated by a competent witness;
• d. The document must be formally offered in evidence
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE
• When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph,
or other record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself [Sec.
3, Rule 130]
• Note: Original document rule is a rule on admissibility (competence). This rule replaced
the Best Evidence Rule.
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE WHEN
NOT APPLICABLE
• Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or
on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule (now
original document rule) does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other
substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need for accounting for the original.
• Affidavits and depositions are considered as not being the best evidence, hence not
admissible if the affiants or deponents are available as witnesses.
• The best evidence rule (now original document rule) does not apply to all types of
evidence. It does not comprehend object and testimonial evidence.
ORIGINAL VS. DUPLICATE
• Original—the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person
executing or issuing it.
•
An “original” of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom.
•
If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight or other means,
shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “original”. [Sec. 4, Rule 130]
• Duplicate—counterpart produced by:
•
a. the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix;
•
b. means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures;
•
c. mechanical or electronic recording;
•
d. chemical reproduction; or
•
e. other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
ORIGINAL VS. DUPLICATE
• General Rule: A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original.
• Exceptions:
•
1. a general question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
•
2. in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
SECONDARY EVIDENCE
Exception to the Original Document Rule
1. WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS
UNAVAILABLE
• a. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court;
• b. Upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability; and
• c. Without bad faith on the offeror’s part
1. WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS
UNAVAILABLE
• What to present to prove contents (in this order)
•
a. A copy;
•
b. A recital of its contents in some authentic document; or
•
c. The testimony of witnesses
• In order that secondary evidence may be admissible, there must be proof by satisfactory
evidence of:
•
1. due execution of the original;
•
2. loss, destruction, or unavailability of all such originals; and
•
3. reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to produce the original.
1. WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS
UNAVAILABLE
• Due execution of the document should be proved through the testimony of either:
•
a. the person or persons who executed it;
•
b. the person before whom its execution was acknowledged; or
•
c. any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered, or who, after its execution and delivery,
saw it and recognized the signatures, or by a person to whom the parties to the instruments had previously
confessed the execution thereof
1. WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS
UNAVAILABLE
• When more than one original copy exists, it must appear that all of them have been lost,
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before secondary evidence can be given of any
one. A photocopy may not be used without accounting for the other originals. [Citibank v.
Teodoro, G.R. No. 150905 (2003)].
• The general rule concerning proof of a lost instrument is, that reasonable search shall be
made for it in the place where it was last known to have been, and, if such search does
not discover it, then inquiry should be made of persons most likely to have its custody, or
who have some reasons to know of its whereabouts. [Tan v. CA, G.R. No. L-56866 (1985)]
2. WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS IN THE CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF
THE ADVERSE PARTY OR ORIGINAL CANNOT BE OBTAINED BY
LOCAL JUDICIAL PROCESSES OR PROCEDURES
• What to present to prove contents
•
Same as when lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court [Sec. 6, Rule 130]
3. WHEN THE CONTENTS O DOCUMENTS, RECORDS, PHOTOGRAPHS, OR NUMEROUS
ACCOUNTS ARE VOLUMINOUS AND CANNOT BE EXAMINED IN COURT WITHOUT
GREAT LOSS OF TIME, AND THE FACT SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED FROM THEM IS
ONLY THE GENERAL RESULT OF THE WHOLE
(“SUMMARIES”)
• What to present to prove contents
•
Chart, summary, or calculation of the contents of such evidence
•
The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the adverse party at a reasonable time
and place. The court may order that they be produced in court. [Sec. 7, Rule 130]
4. WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS A PUBLIC RECORD IN
THE CUSTODY OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR IS
RECORDED IN A PUBLIC OFFICE
• What to present to prove contents
•
Certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof [Sec. 8, Rule 130]
5. WHEN THE ORIGINAL IS OUTSIDE
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
• When the original is outside the jurisdiction of the court, secondary evidence is admissible.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
• Any evidence aliunde, whether oral or written, which is intended or tends to vary or
contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document.
• General Rule: When the terms of an agreement (including wills) have been reduced to
writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as
between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than
the contents of the written agreement [Sec. 10, Rule 130]
• The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written
instrument by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that, at or before the
execution of the parties' written agreement, other or different terms were agreed upon by
the parties, varying the purport of the written contract. [Felix Plazo Urban Poor Settlers v.
Lipat, G.R. No. 182409 (2017)]
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
• Where not applicable
• It does not apply when third parties are involved or those not privy to the written
instrument in question and does not base a claim or assent a right originating in the
instrument
HOW PAROL EVIDENCE CAN BE
INTRODUCED
• General rule: Ground/s for presenting parol evidence is put in issue in a verified pleading
[Sec. 10, Rule 130]
• Exception: If the facts in the pleadings all lead to the fact that it is being put in issue then
the Parol Evidence exception may apply
• In sum, two (2) things must be established for parol evidence to be admitted:
•
1. That the existence of any of the four (4) exceptions has been put in issue in a party's pleading or has not
been objected to by the adverse party; and
•
2. That the parol evidence sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed by the
presenting party.
WHEN CAN PAROL EVIDENCE BE
INTRODUCED
• 1. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement
• 2. Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto
• 3. Validity of the written agreement
• 4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-interest after
the execution of the written agreement.
1. INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY, MISTAKE OR
IMPERFECTION OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT
• Intrinsic ambiguity (latent)– writing admits of two constructions, both of which are in harmony
with the language used.
• The document is clear on its face, but matters outside the agreement create the ambiguity (Ex.
“I bequeath this land to my cousin George.” However, the testator has two cousins named
George)
• Note: American jurisprudence also refers to a situation where an ambiguity partakes of the
nature of both patent and latent ambiguity, that is, an intermediate ambiguity, because the
words of the writing, though seemingly clear and with a settled meaning, is actually equivocal
and admits of two interpretations. Parol evidence, in such a case is admissible to clarify the
ambiguity
• Mistake refers to mistake of fact which is mutual to the parties
• Imperfection includes an inaccurate statement in the agreement or incompleteness in the
writing, or the presence of inconsistent provisions
2. FAILURE OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO EXPRESS
THE TRU INTENT AND AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES
THERETO
• Purpose
•
To enable court to ascertain the true intention of the parties
3. VALIDITY OF THE WRITTEN
AGREEMENT
• Parol evidence may be admitted to show:
•
1. True consideration of a contract
•
2. Want/Illegality of consideration
•
3. Incapacity of parties
•
4. Fictitious/absolutely simulated contract
•
5. Fraud in inducement
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE VS.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Original Document Rule
Parol Evidence Rule
• Contemplates the situation wherein the
• Presupposes that the original document
original writing is not available and/or
there is a dispute as to whether said
writing is the original
is available in court
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE VS.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Original Document Rule
• Prohibits the introduction of
substitutionary evidence in lieu of the
original document regardless of WON it
varies the contents of the original
Parol Evidence Rule
• Prohibits the varying of the terms of a
written agreement
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE VS.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Original Document Rule
Parol Evidence Rule
• Applies to all kinds of writings, recordings,
• Applies only to documents contractual in
photographs, or any material containing
letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures,
symbols, or their equivalent, or other
modes of written expression offered as
proof of their contents
nature and to wills
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE VS.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Original Document Rule
• Can be invoked by any party to an action
regardless of WON such party
participated in the writing involved
Parol Evidence Rule
• Can be invoked only when the
controversy is between the parties to the
written agreement, their privies or any
party directly affected thereby
AUTHENTICATION
• Proving that the objects and documents presented in evidence are genuine and what it
purports to be.
CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS
• Public Documents
•
1. 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
•
2. Notarial documents (except last wills and testaments)
•
3. Documents considered public documents under treaties and conventions which are in force between the Philippines
and the country of source Note: This is a new addition to the original provision.
•
4. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein
• A public document enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth
of the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution. To
overcome this presumption, there must be clear and convincing evidence
• A public document is self-authenticating and requires no further authentication in order to be
presented as evidence in court
CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS
• Private Documents
•
All other writings are private. [Sec. 20, Rule 130]
• A private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person
without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some
disposition or agreement is proved or set forth
PRIVATE DOCUMENTS, WHEN
AUTHENTICATION IS REQUIRED
•
General rule: Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved [Sec. 20,
Rule 132]
•
How to Prove Due Execution and Authenticity
•
•
•
1. By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
•
2. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker; or
•
3. By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity. [Sec. 20, Rule 132]
Before a private document is admitted in evidence, it must be authenticated either by:
•
1. the person who executed it,
•
2. the person before whom its execution was acknowledged,
•
3. any person who was present and saw it executed, or
•
4. who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures, or
•
5. the person to whom the parties to the instruments had previously confessed execution thereof
If a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record, its record, its recordation, or its incorporation into the public record becomes a public
document, but that does not make the private writing itself a public document so as to make it admissible without authentication
WHEN EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY OF A
PRIVATE DOCUMENT IS NOT REQUIRED
• The requirement of authentication of a private document is excused only in four instances,
specifically:
•
1. when the document is an ancient one which is:
•
a. More than 30 years old;
•
b. Produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; and
•
c. Unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion [Sec. 21, Rule 132]
•
2. when the genuineness and authenticity of the actionable document have not been specifically denied under
oath by the adverse party;
•
3. when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted; or
•
4. when the document is not being offered as genuine.
GENUINENESS OF A HANDWRITING
• 1. By any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because:
•
a. He/she has seen the person write; or
•
b. He/she has seen writing purporting to be his/hers upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and
has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person [Sec. 22, Rule 132]
• 2. A comparison by the witness or the court of the questioned handwriting, and admitted
genuine specimens thereof or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge [Sec.
22, Rule 132]
• 3. Expert evidence
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE;
PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
• 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 [Sec. 23, Rule 132]
• Proof of official record referred to in Sec. 19(a), Rule 132
•
•
1. By an official publication thereof; or
2. By a copy of the document attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or his/her deputy
•
a. If record is not kept in the Philippines: accompany with a certificate that such officer has the custody
• i. If the foreign country is a contracting party to a treaty or convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or it is considered a public document under the
treaty or convention: certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form prescribed therein, subject to reciprocity
• ii. If not a contracting party: certificate made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent, or any officer
in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the country where the record is kept
•
3. Must be authenticated by the seal of his/her office
• The certificate shall not be required when a treaty or convention between a foreign country and the
Philippines has abolished the requirement or has exempted the document itself [Sec 24, Rule. 132]
ATTESTATION OF A COPY OF A
DOCUMENT OR RECORD
• 1. Must state that the copy is a correct copy of the original or a specific part thereof, as the
case may be
• 2. Must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he/she be the
clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court
PUBLIC RECORD OF PRIVATE
DOCUMENT
• 1. By the original record; or
• 2. By a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate
certificate that such officer has the custody
PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD
• 1. Written statement
•
a. Signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his/her deputy
•
b. Must state that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of
his/her office
• 2. Certificate
•
a. Accompanying the written statement
•
b. Must state that that such officer has the custody
HOW A JUDICIAL RECORD IS
IMPEACHED
• Establish:
•
1. Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
•
2. Collusion between the parties; or
•
3. Fraud in the party offering the record, with respect to the proceedings
PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS
• Notarial Documents
• Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law which
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 [Sec.
30, Rule 132]
• Such notarized documents are evidence, even against 3rd persons, of the facts which
gave rise to their execution and of the date of execution [Sec. 23, Rule 132]
ALTERATIONS IN A DOCUMENT
• When Applicable and Whose Burden of Proof
•
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. If he or she fails to do
that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence [Sec. 31, Rule 132]
• How to Account for Alteration
•
Party producing a document as genuine may show that the alteration
•
1. Was made by another, without his/her concurrence;
•
2. Was made with the consent of the parties affected by it;
•
3. Was otherwise properly or innocently made; or
•
4. Did not change the meaning or language of the instrument. [Sec. 31, Rule 132]
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN
UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE
• Not admissible unless accompanied by a translation into English or Filipino. Parties or
their attorneys are directed to have the translation prepared before trial [Sec. 33, Rule
132]
• Where such document, not so accompanied with a translation in English or Filipino, is
offered in evidence and not objected to, either by the parties or the court, it must be
presumed that the language in which the document is written is understood by all, and the
document is admissible in evidence. [Heirs of Doronio v. Heirs of Doronio, G.R. No.
169454 (2007)]
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
RULE 130 C
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
• Witness
•
A witness is one who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing, a beholder, spectator or
eyewitness. One who testifies to what he has seen or heard, or otherwise observed
• Qualifications of a Witness
•
All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
•
Religious/political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided
by law, shall not be ground for disqualification [Sec. 21, Rule 130]
BASIC QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS
• a. He/she can perceive
•
i. Corollary to perception is that the witness must have personal knowledge of the facts surrounding the
subject matter of his testimony [Sec. 22, Rule 130]
• b. He/she can make known his perception
•
i. This means that he/she must have the ability to remember and communicate the remembered perception
• c. He/she must take an oath or affirmation [Sec. 1, Rule 132]
• d. He/she must not possess any of the disqualifications
BASIC QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS
• A deaf-mute is competent to be a witness so long as he/she has the faculty to make
observations and he/she can make those observations known to others [People v. Aleman
y Longhas, G.R. No. 181539 (2013)]
• Parties declared in default are not disqualified from taking the witness stand for nondisqualified parties. The law does not provide default as an exception [Marcos v. Heirs of
Navarro, G.R. No. 198240 (2013)]
• There is no substantive or procedural rule which requires a witness for a party to present
some form of authorization to testify as a witness for the party presenting him or her
BASIC QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS
• When determined
•
Qualification of a witness is determined at the time the said witness is produced for examination or at the
taking of their depositions.
•
With respect to children of tender years, competence at the time of the occurrence is also taken into account.
BASIC QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS
• In case person is convicted of a crime
•
General rule: Not disqualified The fact that a witness has been convicted of felony is a circumstance to be
taken into consideration as affecting his character and credibility [Enrile, et al. v. Roberto, et al. G.R. No. L42309 (1935)]
•
Exception: Otherwise provided by law, e.g. under Art. 821 of the Civil Code, a person convicted of any of the
following crimes cannot be a witness to a will:
•
a. Falsification of documents,
•
b. Perjury; or
•
c. False testimony
BASIC QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS
• Competency of a Witness
•
•
One is qualified to take the witness stand if:
•
a. He is capable of perceiving at the time of the occurrence of the fact; and
•
b. He came make his perception known [Sec. 20, Rule 130]
Competency has reference to the basic qualifications and the absence of disqualifications of a witness to
testify. [Riano, 185, 2016 Ed.]
• Competency Presumed
•
A person who takes the witness stand is
•
presumed to possess the qualifications of a witness. His competence may be questioned by the other party by
interposing an objection.
CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS
• Credibility has nothing to do with the law or the rules. It refers to the weight and
trustworthiness or reliability of the testimony. [Riano, 185, 2016 Ed.]
• 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. [Llanto v. Alzona, 450 SCRA 288 (2005)]
DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
• EFFECT OF INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER
•
•
A person is not disqualified by reason of his interest in the subject matter.
Interest only affects credibility, not competency.
• EFFECT OF RELATIONSHIP
•
•
General rule: Mere relationship does not impair credibility [People v. De Guzman, G.R. 130809 (2000)]
Exception:
•
To warrant rejection, it must be clearly shown that:
•
a. Testimony was inherently improbable or defective
•
b. Improper/evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate falsely
• Note: Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity (previously Sec. 21, Rule
130) and disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party aka Dead Man’s
Statute (previously Sec. 23, Rule 130) have been deleted in the 2019 Revisions.
DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
• Disqualification by Reason of Marriage
•
•
Also known as Marital Disqualification Rule [Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439 (2005)] or Spousal Immunity
Elements
•
1. During their marriage
• i. The marriage must be valid and existing at the time of the offer of the testimony
•
2. The husband or the wife cannot testify against the other
• i. The “other” spouse must be a party to the action, either as a plaintiff or defendant
• ii. Note: 2019 Revision removed the words “for or”
•
3. Without the consent of the affected spouse
• Except: Spouse may testify against the other even without the consent of the latter
•
•
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/ascendants
[Sec. 23, Rule 130]
DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
• Disqualification by reason of marriage
• Rationale
•
1. There is identity of interests between husband and wife;
•
2. If one were to testify against the other, there is a consequent danger of perjury;
•
3. Policy of the law is to guard the security and confidence of private life, and to prevent domestic disunion and
unhappiness; and
•
4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility, there is danger of punishing one spouse through the hostile
testimony of the other
DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
• Disqualification by reason of marriage
• Duration
•
General rule: During their marriage [Sec. 23 Rule 130]
•
Exception: Where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be
preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and
tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of interests disappears, and the consequent danger of perjury based
on that identity is non-existent [Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439 (2005)]
DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
• Disqualification by reason of marriage
• Scope of Rule
•
The rule also includes utterance as to facts or mere production of documents. It does not only prevent
disclosure of matters communicated in nuptial confidence but is an absolute prohibition against the spouse’s
testifying to any facts affecting the other however these facts may have been acquired. [Herrera]
• Waiver of Disqualification
•
If one spouse imputes the commission of a crime against the other, the latter may testify against the former.
[People v. Francisco, G.R. No. L-568 (1947)]
• Spouses as Co-Accused
•
The other cannot be called as an adverse party witness under this Rule
DISQUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
• Disqualifications by Reason of Privileged Communications; Rule on Third Parties
Privilege
• A privilege is a rule of law that, to protect a particular relationship or interest, either permits
a witness to refrain from giving testimony he otherwise could be compelled to give, or
permits someone usually one of the parties, to prevent the witness from revealing certain
information. [Herrera]
• Privilege may only be invoked by the persons protected thereunder. It may also be waived
by the same persons, either impliedly or expressly.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• HUSBAND AND WIFE
•
•
Rationale
•
•
•
Also known as marital privilege
Confidential nature of the privilege; to preserve marital and domestic relations
Elements
•
1. The husband or the wife
•
2. During or after the marriage
•
3. Cannot be examined
•
4. Without the consent of the other
•
5. As to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage [Sec. 24(a), Rule 130]
Except: Spouse may testify for or against the other even without the consent of the latter
•
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.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• HUSBAND AND WIFE
• A widow of a victim allegedly murdered may testify as to her husband’s dying declaration as to
how he died since the same was not intended to be confidential [US v. Antipolo, G.R. No. L13109 (1918)]
• Scope: “Any communication”
•
Includes utterances, either oral or written, or acts [Herrera]
• When not applicable
•
1. When the communication was not intended to be kept in confidence
•
2. When the communication was made prior to the marriage
•
3. Waiver of the privilege
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• HUSBAND AND WIFE
• Waiver
•
1. Failure of the spouse to object; or
•
2. Calling spouse as witness on cross examination
•
3. Any conduct constructed as implied consent. [Herrera]
• The objection to the competency of the spouse must be made when he or she is first
offered as a witness. The incompetency is waived by failure to make a timely objection to
the admission of spouse’s testimony [People v. Pasensoy, G. R. No. 140634 (2002)]
MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION VS.
MARITAL PRIVILEGE
Marital Disqualification (Sec. 22)
• One spouse should be a party to the
case;
• Applies only if the marriage is existing at
the time the testimony is offered; and
Marital Privilege (Sec. 24a)
• Neither of the spouses need to be a
party;
• Does not cease even after the marriage is
dissolved; and
• Constitutes a total prohibition on any
• Prohibition is limited to testimony on
testimony against the spouse of the
witness
confidential communications between
spouses
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
• Elements
• As regards an attorney or any person reasonably believed by the client to be
licensed to engage in the practice of law
• 1. Without the consent of his client
• 2. Cannot be examined as to
•
a. Any communication made by the client to him/her, or
•
b. His/her advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
• As regards an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, clerk, or other persons assisting
the attorney
•
1. Without the consent of the client and his/her employer
•
2. Cannot be examined
•
3. Concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
• Subject-matter of the privilege
•
1. Communications
•
2. Observations by the lawyer (regardless of medium of transmission which may include oral or written words
and actions)
•
3. Tangible evidence delivered to a lawyer
•
4. Documents entrusted to a lawyer
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
• Exceptions
• 1. Furtherance of crime or fraud
•
a. If the services or advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained
•
b. To enable or aid anyone
•
c. To commit or plan to commit
•
d. What the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud [Sec. 24(b)(i), Rule 130]
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
• Exceptions
• 2. Claimants through same deceased client
•
a. As to communication relevant to an issue between parties who
•
b. Claim through the same deceased client
•
c. Regardless of whether the claims are by testate, intestate, or inter vivos transaction [Sec. 24(b)(ii), Rule
130]
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
• Exceptions
• 3. Breach of duty by lawyer or client
• a. As to communications relevant to an issue of breach of duty
•
i. By the lawyer to his/her client; or
•
ii. By the client to his/her lawyer [Sec. 24(b)(iii), Rule 130]
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
• Exceptions
• 4. Document attested by the lawyer
•
a. As to communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document
•
b. The lawyer is an attesting witness [Sec. 24(b)(iv), Rule 130]
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
• Exceptions
• 5. Joint clients
•
a. As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients
•
b. The communication was made by any of them to
•
c. The lawyer retained or consulted in common
•
d. Communication is offered in an action between any of the clients
•
e. Neither expressly agreed otherwise [Sec. 24(b)(v), Rule 130]
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
• Identity of Client
•
General rule: The attorney-client privilege may not be invoked to refuse to divulge the identity of the client.
•
Exceptions:
•
1. When a strong probability exists that revealing the name would implicate that person in the very same activity for which
he sought the lawyer’s advice;
•
2. When disclosure would open the client to liability;
•
3. When the name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• ATTORNEY AND CLIENT
• Duration of the privilege
•
In the absence of a statute, the privilege is permanent. It may even be claimed by a client’s executor or
administrator after the client’s death
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
•
PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT
•
Elements
•
1. A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by the patient to be authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy
•
•
a. Psychotherapist:
•
i. Person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition; or
•
ii. A person licensed as a psychologist by the government while similarly engaged
2. In a civil case
•
a. Note: the privilege cannot be claimed in a criminal case because the interest of the public in a criminal prosecution should be deemed more important than the secrecy of the communication
•
3. Without the consent of the patient
•
4. Cannot be examined as to
•
a. Any confidential communication made between the patient and his/her physician or psychotherapist
•
b. For the purpose of diagnosis or treatment
•
i. Of the patient’s physical, mental, or emotional condition
•
ii. Including drug or alcohol addiction
•
Note: this privilege also applies to persons, including members of the patient’s family, who have participated in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient under the direction of the
physician or psychotherapist. [Sec. 24(c), Rule 130]
•
Physician-patient relationship need not be entered into voluntarily
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT
• When not applicable
•
1. Communication was not given in confidence
•
2. Communication was irrelevant to the professional employment
•
3. Communication was made for an unlawful purpose
•
4. Communication was intended for the commission/concealment of a crime
•
5. Communication was intended to be made public/divulged in court
•
6. When there was a waiver
•
7. When the doctor was presented as an expert witness and only hypothetical problems were presented to him
[Lim v. C.A., G.R. No. 91114 (1992)]
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT
• Waiver
•
1. Express waiver – may only be done by the patient
•
2. Implied waiver
•
a. By failing to object
•
b. When the patient testifies
•
c. A testator procures an attending doctor to subscribe his will as an attesting witness
•
d. Disclosure of the privileged information either made or acquiesced by the privilege holder before trial
•
e. Where the patient examines the physician as to matters disclosed in a consultation
•
f. Also check Rule 28 on Physical and Mental Examination [Rules on Civil Procedure]
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT
• Physician allowed to testify as an expert
•
A doctor is allowed to be an expert witness when he does not disclose anything obtained in the course of his
examination, interview and treatment of a patient. [Lim v. C.A., G.R. No. 91114 (1992)]
• Autopsical information
•
If the information was not acquired by the physician in confidence, he may be allowed to testify thereto. But if
the physician performing the autopsy was also the deceased’s physician, he cannot be permitted either
directly or indirectly to disclose facts that came to his knowledge while treating the living patient [Herrera, citing
US Case Travelers’ Insurance Co. v. Bergeron]
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT
• Duration of privilege
•
The privilege survives the death of the patient. [Riano, 212, 16th Ed.]
• Hospital Records during discovery procedure
•
To allow the disclosure during discovery procedure of the hospital records would be to allow access to
evidence that is inadmissible without the patient’s consent. Disclosing them would be the equivalent of
compelling the physician to testify on privileged matters he gained while dealing with the patient, without the
latter’s prior consent. [Chan v. Chan, G.R. No. 179786 (2013)]
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• PRIEST AND PENITENT
• Elements
•
1. A minister or priest or person reasonably believed to be so
•
2. Without the consent of the affected person
•
3. Cannot be examined as to any
•
•
•
a. communication; or
•
b. confession made to; or
•
c. advice given by him/her
4. in his/her professional character
5. in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• PUBLIC OFFICERS
• Elements
•
1. A public officer
•
2. During or after his/her tenure
•
3. Cannot be examined as to communications made to him/her in official confidence
•
4. When the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• PUBLIC OFFICERS
• Elements of “presidential communications privilege”
•
1. Must relate to a “quintessential and nondelegable presidential power;”
•
2. Must be authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself;
and
•
3. Privilege may be overcome by a showing of adequate need such that the information sought “likely contains
important evidence” and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere [Neri v. Senate, G.R. No. 180643
(2008)]
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
• PUBLIC OFFICERS
• Purpose
•
The privilege is not intended for the protection of public officers but for the protection of the public interest.
When no public interest would be prejudiced, this privilege cannot be invoked [Banco Filipino v. Monetary
Board, G.R. No. 70054 (1986)).
• Rule on Third Parties
•
The communication shall remain privileged, even in the hands of a third person who may have obtained
the information, provided that the original parties to the communication took reasonable precaution to
protect its confidentiality. [Sec. 24, Rule 130 (last par.)]
PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
RULE
Sec. 25, Rule 130
Art. 215, Family Code
Article 315, Civil Code
(repealed by Family Code)
No person shall be compelled to
testify against his/her
1. Parents
2. Other direct ascendants
3. Children or
4. Other direct descendants
No descendant shall be
compelled, in a criminal case, to
testify against his parents and
grandparents
No descendant can be compelled,
in a criminal case, to testify
against his parents and
ascendants
Except when such testimony is
indispensable in a crime
1. Against that person or
2. by one parent against the other.
Except when such testimony is
indispensable in a crime
1. Against the descendant or
2. by one parent against the other
NONE
PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
RULE
• Applicability
• The rule is applied to both civil and criminal cases [Herrera]
• The privilege cannot apply between stepmothers and stepchildren because the rule
applies only to direct ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by a common
ancestry. [Lee v. C.A., G.R. No. 177861 (2010)]
• A child can waive the filial privilege and choose to testify against his father. The rule refers
to a privilege not to testify, which can be invoked or waived like other privileges. [People v.
Invencion y Soriano, G.R. No. 131636 (2003)]
TRADE SECRETS
• General Rule: A person cannot be compelled to testify about any trade secret
• Except: the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice
•
When disclosure is directed, the court shall take protective measures, as required by
•
1. the interests of the owner of the trade secret;
•
2. the interests of the parties; and
•
3. the furtherance of justice [Sec. 26, Rule 130]
• Note: This is a new rule.
OTHER PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION NOT IN THE ROC
• 1. Newsman’s Privilege
•
General rule: Publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of
general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in
said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter
•
Exception: Court or a House/Committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by security of the
State
•
Note: This is without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws [R.A. 53, as amended by R.A.
1477]
• 2. Information in Conciliation Proceedings
•
All information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communications
[Art. 233, Labor Code]
OTHER PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION NOT IN THE ROC
• 3. Data Privacy Act
•
Personal information controllers may invoke the principle of privileged communication over privileged
information that they lawfully control or process. Subject to existing laws and regulations, any evidence
gathered on privileged information is inadmissible [Sec. 15, RA 10173]
• 4. Food and Drug Administration Act
•
Prohibits the use of a person to his own advantage, or revealing, other than to the Secretary of Health or
officers or employees of the Department of Health or to the courts when relevant in any judicial proceeding
under this Act, any information acquired under authority Board of Food Inspection and Board of Food and
Drug, or concerning any method or process which as a trade secret is entitled to protection [Secs. 9, 11 (f) and
12, RA 3720]