VIII. EVIDENCE (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)90
A. General Provisions and Principles (Rule 128)**
1. Definition of Evidence
● Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact91.
● Not every fact having a conceivable connection to the issue of a case, or that
which provides a reasonable inference as to the truth or falsity of a matter
alleged, is considered evidence.
● To be considered evidence, it must be “sanctioned” or allowed by the Rules of
Court. It is not evidence if it is excluded by the law or by the Rules, even if it
proves the existence or non-existence of a fact-in-issue
○ Hearsay evidence, a coerced extrajudicial confession of the accused, and
an evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights, do not fall
within the definition of evidence
● Evidence is not an end in but is merely a means of ascertaining the truth of a
matter of fact specifically in a judicial proceeding
○ This “truth” is not necessarily the actual truth but is the judicial or
legal truth
2. Scope of the Rules on Evidence
● Under the principle of uniformity, the rules on evidence, as a general policy,
shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearing
● The rules on evidence apply only to judicial proceedings and shall not apply to
election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency
proceedings, and other cases except by analogy or in a suppletory character92.
● The rules on evidence should not be rigidly applied in the course of
preliminary investigation proceedings and are not strictly adhered to in
administrative proceedings nor in proceedings before labor tribunals.
● Evidence is not longer required to prove an assertion in certain instances, such
as:
○ Where no factual issue exists in a case
○ Where the pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact
○ When dispensed with by agreement of the parties
90
Based on the Evidence books of Dean Espejo and Justice Riano
Sec. 1, Rule 128
92
Sec. 4, Rule 128
91
Table of Contents
512
○ On matters of judicial notice and on matters judicially admitted
○ When the law presumes the truth of a fact
○ When a rule presumes the truth of a fact
○ When a fact is judicially admitted by the adverse party
3. Proof vs. Evidence**
● Proof is the logically sufficient reason for asserting the truth of a proposition
advanced. It is the result and effect of evidence. It is the effect when the
requisite quantum of evidence of a particular fact is met.
● Evidence is a narrower term. It is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court,
of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. it is
not evidence if it is excluded by law or by the Rules, even if it proves the
existence or non-existence of a fact in issue (Rule 128, Sec. 1). It includes only
such kinds of proof as may be legally presented at a trial.
4. Factum Probandum vs. Factum Probans**
● There are two kinds of facts: ultimate facts (factum probandum or facta
probanda) and evidentiary facts (factum probans or facta probantia).
○ Ultimate facts refer to the principal, determinative and constitutive
facts the existence of which the plaintiff’s cause of action or
defendant’s defense rests. It is necessarily hypothetical and is required
to be stated in a pleading. It is a fact or proposition to be established.
○ Evidentiary facts are those that are necessary for the determination of
the ultimate facts. They are a premise upon which conclusions of
ultimate facts are based. Pleadings should only omit these. They are
facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be established.
○ Evidence signifies a relationship between these two facts.
● Only facts are required to be proved because law, being official acts of
government and subject of mandatory judicial notice, require no proof.
● Factum probandum in a certain case may be affected by the judicial admissions
of a party.
○ In a civil case, it refers to the elements of a cause of action alleged in the
complaint to be proven by the plaintiff when such elements are denied
specifically by the defendant (no specific denial = no factum
probandum).
○ In a criminal case, when the accused pleads not guilty, the factum
Table of Contents
513
probandum refers to the matter that the prosecution must prove
beyond reasonable doubt in order to justify a conviction.
5. Equipoise Rule
The "equipoise doctrine" is the rule which states that when the evidence of the
prosecution and the defense are so evenly balanced the appreciation of such evidence
calls for tilting of the scales in favor of the accused. Thus, the evidence for the
prosecution must be heavier to overcome the presumption of innocence of the
accused. The constitutional basis of the rule is the Bill of Rights which finds
expressions in Sec. 1, par. (a), Rule 115 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as
amended (see People v. Argawamon, 215 SCRA 652; People v. Ramilla, G.R. No.
101435, 8 November 1993; People v. De la Iglesia, G.R. No. 110991-92, 24 Feb. 1995).
Reference: Vicario vs CA, GR 124491 (1991)
B. Liberal Construction of the Rules on Evidence
● Like all other provisions under the Rules of Court, the rules on evidence must be
liberally construed. Rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than
frustrate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application of the rules must
always be eschewed if it would subvert their primary objective of enhancing substantial
justice.
● Although strict compliance with the rules of procedure is desired, liberal interpretation
is warranted in cases where a strict compliance of the rules will not serve the ends of
justice93.
● However, the rule on liberal construction is not a license to disregard the evidence, or
lack thereof on record; or to misapply the laws94.
C. Judicial Notice and Judicial Admissions (Rule 129)**
1. Judicial Notice; What need not be proved; matters of judicial notice – Rule
129, secs. 1-3**
● Judicial notice is the cognization of certain facts which judges may properly
take and act on without proof. It is a rule that allows a fact to be introduced
into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well-known that it
cannot be refuted. It takes the place of proof and is of equal force, thus making
93
Rubio v Alabala, G.R. No. 203947, Feb. 26, 2014
Inter Orient Maritime Enterprises, Inc. v. Creer III, G.R. No.
94
Table of Contents
514
evidence unnecessary.
○ For there to be judicial notice, the following requisites must be
fulfilled:
○ The matter must be one of general and common knowledge (notoriety
or in public records)
○ It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
uncertain
○ It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the cour
(or capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned)
● To be common knowledge, it must be matters coming to the knowledge of
man generally in the course of the ordinary experience of life or generally
accepted by mankind to be true.
● The types of judicial notice are: mandatory, discretionary, or judicial notice
taken after hearing.
● The objects of mandatory judicial notice are:
○ Existence and territorial extent of states
○ Political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality
○ Law of Nations
○ Admiralty and maritime courts
○ Political constitution and history of the Philippines (those of national
consequence, not of reality)
○ Official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments
○ Laws of nature
○ Measure of time
○ Geographical divisions
● Law of Nations
○ The applicable law of nations are those in Article 2, Section 2 of the
1987 Philippine Constitution and those generally accepted principles
of international law. Under Article 2, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution, the Philippines renounces war, adopts generally accepted
principles of international law, and follows a policy of peace/ It also
provides that international law becomes part of the law of the land
either by transformation or by incorporation.
○ As previously stated, the generally accepted principles of international
law form part of the law of land. To be binding, there must be state
Table of Contents
515
practice and opinio juris.
○ This does not, however, apply to the law of a particular nation, which
must be proved.
● Official Acts of Government
○ Only the following official act may be the subject of mandatory judicial
notice:
■ Legislative Department = laws passed by Congress
■ Executive Department = acts of the President (Pres. Dec., Exec.
Ord., Proclamations, etc.) as well as pardon and amnesty
■ Judicial Department = SC acts, decisions and issuances
● Acts of subordinate courts are not covered
● Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the
contents of the records of another case
● Xpns: in the absence of objection, with the knowledge
of the opposing party, or with the consent of the
parties; for dismissal of cases; when withdrawn from
the archives
● Ordinances
○ Generally not covered
○ May take judicial notice thereof in the following cases
■ Required to do so by statute (xpn: court does not have access
to it; party must supply the court)
■ Appeal where inferior court took judicial notice of an
ordinance involved in the said case
■ The ordinance is capable of unquestionable demonstration
● Laws of Nature
○ Natural order of things as dictated by science (e.g. physics, biology)
○ Capable of unquestionable demonstration
● Other Objects
○ Reluctance to testify or to report to police
○ Teleconferencing
● Discretionary Judicial Notice
○ Rests wholly on the judgment of the court (e.g. current events or
widely known events)
○ Covers matters which
■ are of public knowledge
Table of Contents
516
■ are capable of unquestionable demonstration
■ ought to be known by judges because of their judicial
functions
○ Must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either
■ generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial
court; or
■ capable of accurate or ready demonstration by resorting to
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable
● Judicial Notice After Hearing
○ When: doing pre-trial and trial
○ How: motu proprio or upon motion
○ must hear parties on the propriety of taking judicial notice of any
matter
■ The parties’ respective positions must be heard and put on
record
○ if done motu propio = might be beneficial for the purpose of
expediting trial
○ if done upon motion of a party = might be beneficial for him
○ as a general rule, the court shall consider no evidence that has not been
formally offered
○ There might have been failure or inadvertence to prove a decisive fact
during trial
○ such tactual matter may be considered for rendering judgment or
resolving an appeal
● No judicial notice of the following:
○ Incurability of personality disorders
○ Controverted facts
○ Age based on appearance
■ The age of the victim/offended party must be proved through
● original or CTC of certificate of live birth
● similar or authentic documents (e.g. baptismal
certificate and school records)
● testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother
or a family member
○ alleged less than three years and seek to prove
less than seven
Table of Contents
517
○ alleged less than seven years and seek to prove
less than twelve
○ alleged less than twelve years and seek to prove
less than eighteen
● complainant’s testimony, if expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused
■ The prosecution bears the burden of proof
2. Judicial Admission – Rule 129, sec. 4**
● A deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement by a party in the course of
proceedings in a case about a concrete fact within that party’s knowledge
● Does not require proof
● If extrajudicial (made by a party out of a court), it must be pleaded and proved
● May be made in:
○ the pleadings (initiatory and responsive)
○ the course of trial (verbal or written)
○ other stages
■ Judicial admissions made in a pleading
● when actionable document pleaded
○ its genuineness and due execution deemed admitted
■ unless the adverse party specifically denies them under oath and
sets forth what he/she claims to be the facts
■ failure to file a reply = judicially admitted
● It must:
○ be a material averment not specifically denied
○ Be in a FILED pleading, not a draft and not dismissed
● not deemed admission: conclusions, non-ultimate facts, amount of
unliquidated damages
● an amended pleading supersedes the pleading it amends
○ the superseded pleading may be utilized as extrajudicial admission but
must be formally offered in evidence
● Admissions during trial
○ Oral: manifestations made by parties or the counsels and testimonies in
open court
○ Written: motions, written manifestations, brief, memoranda, affidavits;
submission in answer to a request for admission
Table of Contents
518
● Admissions in other stages
○ pre-trial admission in civil cases
■ once the stipulations are reduced in writing and signed by the
parties and their counsels, they become judicial admissions and
are binding on the parties who made them
○ during discovery stage of litigation or the availment of discovery
procedures before trial or pending appeal
● Effect of judicial admissions
○ conclusive on the party making them who cannot later challenge them
○ production of evidence is dispensed with
○ the admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in
fact, made
■ ”palpable” = appart/obvious to all parties; court can readily see
that a party never meant to make such an admission and the
adverse party cannot claim otherwise
■ ”not, in fact, made” = admission not made at all or taken out of
context
○ admissions of fact made by a party’s counsel in the course of a trial or
hearing binds the party
D. Admissibility of Evidence (Rule 128)**
1. Requisites for Admissibility of Evidence
● Admissibility refers to the tendency of evidence to be considered.
● Evidence is admissible when it is:
○ relevant to the issue
○ not excluded by the Constitution, the law or the Rules of Court
● On the other hand, probative value refers to the evidentiary weight or the
tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be
without the evidence. It depends on whether or not the evidence proves an
issue and its tendency to convince.
● Axioms of admissibility
○ There are two axioms of admissibility: relevancy and competency.
Relevancy, which is the more important axiom, means that only those
facts which have rational probative value are admissible. Here, evidence
Table of Contents
519
must have a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence and is descriptive of the proper relationship
between factum probandum and factum probans.
○ Competency, on the other hand, means that only those facts not
prohibited by some specific rule are admissible. Not all relevant
evidence is admissible. for example, evidence obtained in violation of
Constitutional rights is inadmissible.
2. Relevance of Evidence and Collateral Matters
● There are two components of relevance: legal relevancy or materiality and
logical relevancy or probative value.
○ Legal relevancy refers to evidence offered upon a matter properly in
issue and is determined by the allegations in the pleadings or by the
requirements of substantive law.
○ Logical relevancy refers to the tendency to establish the proposition for
which it is offered and requires that evidence has a connection to the
issue and a tendency to establish the fact. Relevancy is a broader term
than materiality since what is material is always relevant but what is
relevant is not always material.
● Collateral matters are those that are not in issue. They are generally not allowed
to be proven unless they are relevant or have probative value. However, they are
allowed to be proven in criminal cases due to relevancy when they involve the
following circumstances:
○ antecedent circumstances (prior to the crime)
○ concomitant circumstances (accompany the commission)
○ subsequent circumstances (occur after the crime)
● Collateral matters are also allowed if they have a tendency to induce belief as to
the probability or improbability of the issues of the case as when it would have
the effect of corroborating or supplementing facts previously established by
direct evidence.
3. Multiple Admissibility
● There is multiple admissibility when evidence is admissible for two or more
purposes or when it is admissible for one purpose but not for the other or
against one party but not the other.
● When a material is asked by a party to be admitted as evidence, the party
Table of Contents
520
presenting must inform the court of the purpose which the material is
intended to serve and the court then admits the material as evidence.
● Multiple admissibility may mean either:
○ (i) the evidence is admissible for several purposes or
○ (ii) an evidence is not admissible for one purpose but may be admitted
for a different purpose if it satisfies all the requirements of the other
purpose
4. Conditional Admissibility
● There is conditional admissibility when evidence is admissible only
independence upon other facts, which must be presented. The relevance of
evidence can be seen when connected to other pieces of evidence not yet
offered.
● An evidence is allowed to be presented for the time being or temporarily,
subject to the condition that its relevancy or connection to other facts will later
be proven, or that the party later submit evidence that it meets certain
requirements of the law or rules. If the conditions are not later met, the
evidence will be stricken from the record.
5. Curative Admissibility
● There is curative admissibility when evidence is admissible to counteract the
admission of the improper evidence of the opponent (English rule). The party
who first introduced improper evidence cannot complain. This should not be
invoked if evidence was properly admitted.
● This applies to a situation when improper evidence was allowed to be
presented by one party, then the other party may be allowed to introduce or
present similar improper evidence but only to cure or to counter the
prejudicial effect of the opponent’s inadmissible evidence.
● The party presenting must have raised an objection to the improper evidence,
for if he did not, then it is discretionary for the court to allow him to present
curative evidence.
● The evidence sought to be countered should not refer to those which are
incompetent due to an exclusionary rule.
6. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
● Evidence is direct when it proves a fact without drawing any inference from
Table of Contents
521
another fact. It is circumstantial or indirect when it establishes a fact by making
an inference from a previously established fact or it involves collateral facts or
circumstances. Resort to such is sanction under the Rules and they can be
sufficient for conviction provided that the following requisites occur:
○ There is more than one circumstance
○ The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
○ Combination of all the circumstances, which form an unbroken chain,
enough to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt
7. Positive and Negative Evidence
● Positive evidence is one that affirms certain facts or proves their presence.
● On the other hand, negative evidence is one that denies those facts or shows
their absence.
8. Competent and Credible Evidence
● Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by the law or rules in a
particular case and is a matter of law or rule.
○ Competence refers to the eligibility of a piece of evidence to be received
as such or to the eligibility of a witness to take the stand and testify.
○ An objection should specify the ground for its incompetence, such as
leading, hearsay, or parol.
● Credibility refers to the worthiness of belief or its believability and requires
that both the witness and the testimony must be credible.
9. Exclusionary Rules*
● Evidence may be excluded by the Constitution or the Rules. Under the
Constitution, excluded are those evidence obtained in violation of the
following rights:
○ Against unreasonable searches and seizures
○ To privacy of communication and correspondence; unless there is a
lawful order
○ To be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel
○ Against torture and secret detention places
○ Against self-incrimination
● Also, evidence from wiretapping is also excluded.
● Among the exclusionary rules are:
Table of Contents
522
○ Exclusionary Rule Principle: evidence obtained in violation of a
particular law must be excluded from the trial and will not be admitted
as evidence.
○ Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine: evidence should be excluded if it
was gained in violation of a particular exclusionary law or rule
■ Once the primary source is shown to have been unlawfully
obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence resulting from it
is also inadmissible
■ Exceptions
● Doctrine of Inevitable Discovery: established that
normal police investigation would have inevitably led
to the discovery of the evidence
● Independent Source Doctrine: knowledge of the
evidence is gained from a separate or independent
source that is completely unrelated to the illegal act
● Attenuation Doctrine: there is no clear causal
connection between the illegal police action and the
evidence considering the following factors:
○ time period between the illegal arrest and the
ensuing confession or consented search
○ presence of intervening factors or events
○ purpose and flagrancy of the official
misconduct
E. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence (Rule 133)**
1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt95
● Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the degree of proof that, after investigation
of the whole record, produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind of the
accused’s culpability. In other words, the conscience must be satisfied that the
accused is responsible for the offense charged.
● Reasonable doubt is the state of the case which, after a comparison of all the
evidence, does not lead the judge to have in mind a moral certainty of the truth
of the charge. When there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused,
there must be an acquittal even though his innocence may be doubted.
95
Sec. 2
Table of Contents
523
● Due to the presumption of innocence of an accused, his conviction must rest
not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution.
2. Preponderance of evidence
● In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. This means that the evidence adduced by one side
is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other.
● Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the
term “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible
evidence”. It means probability of the truth and is evidence which is more
convincing that what is offered in opposition thereto.
● In determining whether there is preponderance of evidence, the court may
consider the following:
○ 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 they are testifying, the nate
of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of
their testimony;
○ The witnesses’ interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial;
○ The number of witnesses (preponderance is necessarily with the greater
number)
3. 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.
● It is more than a mere imputation of wrongdoing or violation that would
warrant a finding of liability against the person charged. However, it does not
require evidence that is overwhelming or even preponderant.
● The complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is that the allegation is not evidence
and is not equivalent to proof. Likewise, charges based on mere suspicion and
speculation cannot be given credence.
Table of Contents
524
● In agrarian cases, disbarment cases, and petitions for a Writ of Amparo, the
proper evidentiary threshold is substantial evidence.
● A finding of guilt in a criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of
liability in the administrative case neither will acquittal necessarily exculpate
one administratively.
4. Clear and convincing evidence
● 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.
● It is intermediate, being more than preponderance but not certainty beyond
reasonable doubt.
F. Object (real) Evidence – Rule 130, A**
1. Requisites for admissibility
● Relevant
○ it is relevant only if it makes a fact of consequence more or less
probable than in its absence
● Not excluded by the Constitution, the law or the Rules of Court (competency)
○ not obtained in unreasonable searches and seizures or in violation of
other rights
● Authenticated
○ requirement of proving that the evidence is what it purports to be (its
genuineness)
○ testimony must first be given to prove the identity of the object and
that its condition is unchanged
○ to prevent substitution and ensure no significant changes to its
condition
● Authentication made by a competent witness
● Offered in evidence
2. Categories of Object Evidence
● For the purposes of authentication of an object or for laying the foundation for
the exhibit, object evidence may be classified into the following:
○ Objects that have readily identifiable marks (unique objects);
○ Objects that are made readily identifiable (objects made unique); and
○ Objects with no identifying marks (non-unique objects)
Table of Contents
525
● If the object has a unique characteristic, it becomes readily identifiable and the
authentication requirement would be satisfied when the witness testifies that
the object has a unique characteristic and asserts that the object shown to him
in court is the same or substantially in the same condition
● If the object does not have a unique characteristic, the witness may be able to
identify the same in court if he claims that he made the thing acquire a unique
characteristic like placing identifying marks on it and testifies that he did so
and that the object presented has the same characteristics
3. Chain of custody, in relation to Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, as amended**
● The third category of object evidence refers to those which are not readily
identifiable, were not made identifiable or cannot be made identifiable. These
objects are easily tampered, altered or contaminated, intentionally or
unintentionally and the proponent of the evidence must establish a chain of
custody to authenticate the object in court.
● 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. The evidence
exhibited must be the very same substance recovered from the accused.
● The purpose of the chain of custody is to prove that the object found or
confiscated in the crime scene is the very same object offered in evidence in
court. 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.
● The chain of custody rule takes primary importance to ascertain that the
integrity and identity of the seized item are preserved with moral certainty. It
must be shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
preserved from the time it came into possession of the police officers to the
time it was offered in evidence in court. It is established by testimony about
every link in the chain as to how and from whom it was received, where it was
and what happened to it, the condition it was received, and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
● In drug cases, the chain of custody also means that the identity of the
dangerous drugs should be established beyond doubt by showing that the
items offered in court were the same substance involved in the buy-bust
operation.
Table of Contents
526
● It is not required when an object possesses distinguishing characteristics that
would enable a witness to readily identify the evidence in court.
● Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
○ Sec. 21 embodies the stringent specific procedure required in the
confiscation and seizure of drugs to establish the chain of custody.
Showing compliance involves testimony of every link in the chain from the confiscation of the illegal drugs to its receipt in the forensic
laboratory up to its presentation in court - as to how and from whom it
was received, where and what happened to it while in his possession,
and its condition when received and when delivered to the next link.
○ “Chain of custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements
and custody of seized drugs and paraphernalia in each stage including
the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody
of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody
were made, and the final disposition.
○ The procedure in the handling of seized drugs to establish the chain of
custody are as follows:
■ Physical inventory and photographing by the apprehending
team (seizure and marking by the apprehending officer)
● In the presence of the accused or persons from whom
it was confiscated or his/her representative or counsel,
with an elected public official and a representative of
the National Prosecution Service or the media
● All of whom shall sign the copies of the inventory and
given a copy
● Conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served or at the nearest police station
■ Submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative
and quantitative examination within 24 hours (turnover to the
investigating officer)
■ Issuance of certification of the forensic laboratory examination
results by the forensic laboratory examiner within 24 hours
(turnover to the forensic chemist)
■ Ocular inspection by the court of the confiscated drugs within
72 hours after the filing of the criminal case (turnover to the
court)
Table of Contents
527
■ Destruction of the confiscated drugs by the PDEA in the
presence of the accused or persons from whom it was
confiscated or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected
public official and a representative from the DOJ and the
media within 24 hours
■ Issuance of sworn certification as to the destruction
○ Non-compliance with the requirements casts doubt on the integrity of
the seized items and creates reasonable doubt on the guilt of the
accused but non-compliance with the procedure shall not render void
and invalid such seizure and custody if (1) non-compliance on
justifiable grounds and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items were preserved
4. Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC)
● The Rule on DNA Evidence is the primary rule to b applied whenever DNA
evidence is offered, used or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in:
○ Criminal actions;
○ Civil actions; and
○ Special proceedings
● When a matter is not specifically governed by the Rule on DNA Evidence, the
Rules of Court and other pertinent provisions of law on evidence shall apply
● DNA, DNA Profile, and DNA Evidence
○ DNA is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the
body
○ DNA profile is the genetic information derived from DNA testing of
biological samples obtained from a person where such biological
sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person
○ DNA evidence is the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other
genetic information directly generated from the DNA testing of
biological samples
● The significance of DNA lies in the fact that the totality of an individual’s
DNA is unique for the individual, except for identical twins.
● Order for DNA Testing
○ 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.
Table of Contents
528
○ The order for a DNA testing shall not, however, be issued as a matter
of court and from the mere fact that the person requesting for the
testing has a legal interest in the litigation.
○ For the order to be issued, it must be shown that:
■ A biological sample exists that has relevance to the case;
■ The biological sample
● (i) was not previously subjected to the DNA testing
requested; or
● (ii) if it was previously subjected to DNA testing, the
results may require confirmation for good reasons
■ The DNA testing uses a scientifically-valid technique;
■ The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new
information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the
case; and
■ The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may
consider as potentially affecting the accuracy and integrity of
the DNA testing
○ Note: court order required only if there is a pending litigation but not
before the litigation or after conviction
● If, after conviction, the result of the [post] DNA testing are favorable to the
convict, he may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the court of
origin, the CA or the SC, which may, after due hearing, reverse or modify the
judgment of conviction.
G. Documentary Evidence – Rule 130, B**
1. Definition
● Includes writings, recordings, photographs, or any material containing letters,
sounds, numbers or figures or its equivalent
● Photographs as documentary evidence are treated as mode of written
expression offered as proof of their contents
● Writing or material must be offered as proof of its contents to be considered
documentary evidence; if offered not as proof of its contents but as proof of
the writing, then it is object evidence
● Requisites for admissibility
○ relevant and competent
○ authenticated by a competent witness
Table of Contents
529
○ formally offered in evidence
2. Original Document Rule/Best Evidence Rule*
● Original
○ The original is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry
○ An original of a document is:
■ the document itself; or
■ any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person
executing or issuing it
○ Requisites to be considered originals
■ There must be entries made and repeated in the regular course
of business; and
■ The entries must be made at or near the time of the transaction
● Duplicate
○ A counterpart produced by the same impression as the original
through photography, mechanical or electronic recording, chemical
reproduction, or other equivalent techniques
○ Means used and size is immaterial as long as it results in an accurate
reproduction of the original
○ Grounds for inadmissibility
■ question raised as to the authenticity of the original
■ unjust or inequitable, under the circumstances, to admit the
duplicate
○ Requisites for application
■ subject matter must involve a document
■ subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document
c. Secondary Evidence*
● Justifications for non-presentation of the original
○
○
○
○
○
Loss, destruction or unavailability
Custody or control of the adverse party
Numerous accounts
Public records
Not closely related to a controlling issue
○ Opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document
and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production
Table of Contents
530
● Loss, Destruction and Unavailability
○ Loss = perishes, goes out of commerce or disappears and existence
unknown or cannot be recovered
○ Destruction = obliteration (tearing, shredding or burning)
○ Unavailability = physical (immovable objects) or legal (beyond court’s
jurisdiction)
○ Requisites for loss or destruction; must prove
■ loss or destruction was without bad faith
■ prove loss or destruction by preponderance of evidence
■ a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made
on the proper place(s)
■ due execution or existence of the document
○ Requisites for unavailability
■ prove existence or execution
■ show cause of unavailability
■ show unavailability was without bad faith
○ Order of secondary evidence
■ copy of the original
■ recital of its contents in some authentic document
■ testimony of witnesses
○ Custody of control of the adverse party
■ When secondary evidence may be presented
● adverse party fails to produce it after reasonable notice
● cannot be obtained by local judicial processes (outside
territorial jurisdiction or cannot be compelled by
subpoena duces tecum)
■ Requisites
● original exists
● its is in the custody or under the control of the adverse
party who
○ was given reasonable notice to produce it
○ but failed to produce
○ Numerous Accounts; requisites
■ too numerous
■ cannot be examined in court without great loss of time
■ only the general result is sought
Table of Contents
531
○ Public records
■ secondary evidence is a certified copy issued by the public
officer or is an official publication
○ Not closely related to a controlling issue
■ 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
○ Note: a party who calls for the production of a document and inspects
the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence; no estoppel nor
unfavorable inference
d. Parol Evidence*
● This rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written
instrument by testimony purporting to show that at or before the signing of
the document, other terms were orally agreed on by the parties. This is not
limited to the party initiating the action.
● The terms of the written contract are deemed conclusive between the parties
and evidence aliunde is inadmissible to change the term orally agreed on by the
parties. All previous oral agreements merge in the writing and it cannot be
modified or changed by parol evidence. Anything not in the contract is
inadmissible.
● Parol evidence is oral or verbal evidence or that which is given by word of
mouth. With reference to contracts, deed, will and other writing, it is
extraneous evidence or evidence aliunde (“evidence from another source”).
● Requisites for applicability
○ there must be a written agreement
○ there is dispute as to the terms of the agreement
○ the dispute is between the parties or their successors
● If one of the parties to the case is a stranger to the contract, he is not bound by
the rule and can introduce extrinsic evidence.
● A condition precedent, the occurrence of which the operation of the contract
depends, may be established by parol evidence since there is yet no contract in
existence but a condition subsequent may not.
● Requisites for parol evidence to be admitted
○ The existence of any of the four exceptions has been put in issue in a
Table of Contents
532
party’s pleading (which must be verified) or has not been objected to
■ intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection of the written
agreement
■ failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement
■ validity of the written agreement
■ existence of other terms agreed to after the execution of the
written agreement
○ the parol evidence sought to be presented serves to form the basis of the
conclusion proposed by the presenting party
● Ambiguity
○ Extrinsic/Patent: apparent on the face of an instrument to anyone
perusing it, even if unacquainted with the circumstances of the parties
■ Parol evidence allowed to explain only what has been written,
not what was intended
■ instrument itself unintelligible
■ imperfect, false or mistaken description does not vitiate
● court can determine what that something is
○ Intrinsic/Latent: words of the instrument are clear but their
application to the circumstances is doubtful or apply equally to 2
different things or subject matters
■ ambiguity brought about by circumstances extraneous to the
instrument
○ Intermediate: arises by the use of equivocal words that are susceptible
of more than one interpretation
● Mistake: Mistake of fact mutual to the parties; must be put in issue by the
pleadings
● Imperfection: The writing is incomplete and does not express the whole
agreement of the parties; failure to lay down all the terms and conditions
● Failure to express the true intent and agreement
○ Obtains when the written agreement is so ambiguous or obscure in
terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be
understood from a mere reading of the instrument; true agreement not
reflected
○ Extrinsic evidence of the
■ subject matter of the contract
Table of Contents
533
■ relations of the parties to each other
■ facts and circumstances surrounding them when they entered
into the contract
○ Other grounds under the NCC
■ fraud, inequitable conduct or accident
■ ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad faith of the one
drafting
● Validity
○ Must be raised in the pleading
○ Trying to prove that there is not [binding] agreement or contract
○ Facts that may be proved
■ forgery (of the instrument or of the signature)
■ fraud and illegality (through use of circumstantial evidence
aided by legitimate inferences)
■ false representation (to prove how one party was induced by
another to enter it)
■ usury (written document was a device to cover usury or violate
Usury law)
● Existence of other terms agreed to after execution
○ Refers to subsequent ora arguments
○ The parties cannot incorporate in the contract/instrument something
that they will still agree on in the future
● Contemporaneous agreement
○ One entered into at the same time as the written agreement
○ If separate and distinct from the written agreement, may be proved by
parol evidence
○ Parol evidence can serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract
additional contemporaneous conditions not mentions in writing only
if there is fraud or mistake
○ Tests to determine if separate or distinct
■ subject matter: if the subject matter of the written agreement
differs from that of the contemporaneous oral agreement, then
the latter is a separate and distinct agreement and therefore
provable by parol evidence
■ separability: if the subject matter is the same, the test is if the
contemporaneous oral agreement it separable
Table of Contents
534
● Other exceptions
○ Extrinsic evidence admissible for the following purposes
■ aid in the interpretation of the existing terms
■ to show that an unambiguous term in the contract is in fact a
mistaken transcription of a prior valid agreement
■ identify the parties
■ imply/incorporate a term of the contract
■ prove extraneous matters before tribunals not bound by the
strict rules of evidence
○ If exception applicable, the law guarantees only its admissibility, not its
probative value
■ admissibility = relevance and competence; whether it should be
considered
■ probative value = tendency to convince and persuade; whether
it proves an issue
● Express trusts concerning real property cannot be proved by parol evidence
● Collateral oral agreements provable by parol evidence
○ Reconveyance
○ inducements and representations
■ execution of agreement and making of sale
■ by an indorser
○ condition precedent not stipulated in writing
○ signed as principals but are sureties
○ extrinsic agreement between indorser and indorsee, or a prior or
contemporaneous conversation
● Objections based on the Parol Evidence Rule
○ Proper when a party who seeks to present evidence did not properly
plead any of the exceptions in his pleading
○ Must be made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably
apparent or when it is apparent that the witness is going to testify on
matters that violate the rule
○ A party’s failure to timely object is deemed a waiver and parol evidence
may then be entertained
■ includes when party declared in default or when a party does
not have it stricken from the record
● Parol Evidence Rule not applicable when first written agreement replaced by
Table of Contents
535
second verbal agreement
H. Testimonial Evidence – Rule 130, C**
● Presentation of every kind of evidence needs the intervention of a witness.
Competence of a witness means that he is qualified to take the stand and testify on a
particular matter in a judicial proceeding.
1. Qualifications of Witnesses – Sections 21-24**
● Basic Qualifications
○ can perceive
■ must have personal knowledge; the blind cannot see and the
deaf cannot hear
○ can make known his perception to others
■ ability to remember what he has perceived and to
communicate the remembered perception
■ cannot remember = not competent
■ deaf-mute competent if they can
● understand the sanctity of an oath
● comprehend the fact and communicate through an
interpreter
○ take either an oath or an affirmation
■ to assure that the witness comprehend the importance of the
testimony and the potential legal implications
■ must be capable of understanding and must accept; oath
required as a rule
○ not possess any of the disqualifications imposed by law or the rules
2. Competency and Credibility of Witnesses – Sections 21-24**
● Distinctions between competency of a witness and credibility of a witness;
○ 1. Competency of the witness is a matter of law or rule, while
credibility of a witness has nothing to do with the law or rules;
○ 2. Competency of a witness refers to the basic qualifications of a
witness as his capacity to perceive and communicate his perception to
others, while credibility of a witness refers to the believability of a
witness and has nothing to do with the law or the rules.
● Drug abuse will not render a person incompetent to testify. Drug abuse
Table of Contents
536
becomes relevant only if the witness was under the influence of drugs at the
time he is testifying or the time the events in question were observed. (U.S. v.
Novo Sampol)
● Question 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 movement. (Llanto v. Alzona, 450 SCRA 288)
● Appellate courts do not disturb the findings of the trial courts with regards to
the credibility of a witness. The reason for this is that trial courts have the
unique opportunity to observe the witness first hand and note their demeanor,
conduct and attitude under grilling examination. (People v. Cabatlan, 666
SCRA 174) This is especially true when the trial court’s findings have been
affirmed by the appellate court.
● The only time when a reviewing court is not bound by the trial court’s
assessment of credibility arises upon a showing of a fact or circumstance of
weight and influence that was overlooked and, if considered, could affect the
outcome of the case. (People v. Valdez, 663 SCRA 272)
● In a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of
the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things. (People v. Viojela, G.R. No.
177140)
● Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for youth and
immaturity are badges of truth.
● Full weight and credit is given to the testimony of a child complainant, for no
woman, much less one of tender age, would broadcast a violation of her
person, allow an examination of her flesh and endure a public trial of her
remaining dignity, unless she is solely impelled by the desire for redress.
● It is not enough to say that a girl would not expose herself to the humiliation of
a rape complaint unless the charge is true. That is putting things too simply.
For the prosecution to succeed, it is also necessary to find that the
complainant’s story is by itself believable independently of the presumption.
Otherwise, if all that mattered was that presumption, every accusation of rape
would inevitably result, without need of further evidence, in the conviction of
the accused. This would militate against the rule that in every criminal
prosecution, including rape cases, the accused shall be presume innocent until
the contrary is proved. (People v. Sandagon, 233 SCRA 108)
● In determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be
Table of Contents
537
weighed, not numbered. The testimony of only one witness, if credible and
positive, is sufficient to convict. (Bastian v. CA, 552 SCRA 43) BAR
● The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in
everything) is not mandatory but merely sanctions disregard of the testimony
of a witness if the circumstances so warrant. To completely disregard all the
testimony of a witness on this ground, his testimony must have been false as to
a material point, and the witness must have conscious and deliberate intention
to falsify a material point.
○ If the testimony of a witness on a material issue is wilfully false and
given with an intention to deceive, the jury may disregard all the
witness’ testimony
3. Disqualifications of Witnesses**
● Some Disqualifications
○ cannot perceive
○ cannot remember what he had perceived
○ has no personal knowledge of an event the truth of which he wants to
prove
● Disqualification by Reason of Marriage (Sec. 22)
○ Also known as the “marital disqualification rule”
○ GENERAL RULE: During their marriage, neither the husband nor
the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the
affected spouse.
○ Exceptions: 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. (The benefit of this rule may be waived and
it may be done so impliedly or expressly.)
○ The prohibition extends not only to a testimony adverse to the spouse
but also to a testimony in favor of the spouse.
○ The prohibition can no longer be invoked after the marriage is
dissolved.
○ The testimony covered by the marital disqualification rule not only
consists of utterances but also the production of documents. (State v.
Bramlet)
○ A spouse may testify in a trial where the other spouse is a co-accused
but the testimony of witness spouse in reference to the accused spouse
Table of Contents
538
must be disregarded if the latter timely objected thereto under the
marital disqualification rule. (People v. Quidato, 297 SCRA 1)
○ An estranged spouse may testify against the other spouse because the
reason behind the marital disqualification rule is already non-existent.
○ Where the marital and domestic relations between spouses have
become so strained that there is no more harmony, peace or tranquillity
to be preserved, there is no longer any reason to apply the marital
disqualification rule. (People v. Castaneda, 271 SCRA 504; Alvarez v.
Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72)
● Disqualification by Reason of Privileged Communications; Rule on Third
Parties (Sec. 24)
○ Marital privileged communication rule
■ Elements:
● 1. There must be a valid marriage between the husband
and wife;
● 2. There is a communication received in confidence by
one from the other; and
● 3. The confidential communication was received
during the marriage.
■ Distinctions between marital disqualification rule (MDR) and
marital privileged communication rule (MPCR):
● 1. MDR includes facts, occurrences or information
even prior to the marriage, while MPDR applies only
to confidential information received during the
marriage;
● 2. MDR can no longer be invoked once the marriage is
dissolved, while MPCR may be invoked even after the
dissolution of marriage;
● 3. MDR requires that the spouse against whom the
testimony is offered is a party to the action, while
MPCR applies whether the spouses are parties or not;
● 4. In MDR, the prohibition is a testimony for or
against the other, while in MPCR, what is prohibited is
the examination of a spouse as to matters received in
confidence by one from the other during the marriage.
■ The prerogative to object to a confidential communication
Table of Contents
539
between the spouses is vested upon the spouse themselves,
particularly the communicating spouse, not a third person.
○ Attorney-Client Privilege
■ Requisites:
● 1. There must be a communication made by the client
to the attorney, or an advice given by the attorney to his
client;
● 2. The communication or advice must be given in
confidence; and
● 3. The communication or advice must be given either
in the course of the professional employment or with a
view to professional employment.
■ Where a person consults an attorney, not as lawyer, but merely
as a friend, or a participant in a business transaction, the
consultation would not be one made in the course of a
professional employment or with a view to professional
employment as required by Sec. 24(b), and if so proven to be
so, would not be within the ambit of the privilege. (U.S. v.
Tedder)
■ Forms of the communication:
● 1. Oral;
● 2. Written;
● 3. Physical demonstration;
● 4. Transmitted by facsimile, cellular telephone, or other
electronic means.
■ The privilege does not extend to communications where the
client’s purpose is the furtherance of a future intended crime
or fraud, or for the purpose of committing a crime of a tort, or
those made in furtherance of illicit activity. (Wigmore)
■ Under the so-called “last link doctrine,” non-privileged
information, such as the identity of the client, is protected if
the revelation of such information would necessarily reveal
privileged information.
■ When the client and attorney become embroiled in a
controversy between themselves, the privilege is removed from
the attorney’s lips. (Sokol v.Mortimer)
Table of Contents
540
In relation to the attorney, the privilege is owned by the client.
It is he who can invoke the privilege.
■ The duty of a lawyer to preserve his client’s secrets and
■
confidence outlasts the termination of the attorney-client
relationship, and continues even after the client’s death.
(Mercado v. Vitriolo, 459 SCRA 1)
■ Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer are
protected by the rule on privileged communication even if the
prospective client does not thereafter retain the lawyer or the
latter declines the employment. (Mercado v. Vitriolo, supra)
■ The communication must be given by the client because of the
professional relation in order for it to be privileged.
■ Confidential communication refers to information transmitted
■ by voluntary act of disclosure between attorney and client in
■ confidence and by means which, so far as the client is aware,
discloses the information to no third person other than one
reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or
the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was given.
■ If the client seeks an accounting service or business or personal
assistance, and not legal advice, the privilege does not attach to
a communication disclosed for such purpose. (Mercado v.
Vitriolo, supra)
○ Physician-Patient Privilege
■ The privilege cannot be claimed in a criminal case presumably
because the interest of the public in criminal prosecution
should be deemed more important that the secrecy of
information.
■ RATIONALE: To encourage the patient to freely disclose all
the matters which may aid in the diagnosis in the treatment of
a disease of an injury.
■ The rule does not require that the relationship between the
physician and the patient be a result of a contractual
relationship.
■ The physician may be said to be acting in a professional
capacity when he attends to the patient for either curative or
preventive treatment. Hence it is submitted that results of
Table of Contents
541
autopsies may not be deemed covered by the privilege because
autopsies are not intended for treatment.
■ The privilege survives the death of the patient. (Bassil v. Ford)
○ Priest-Penitent Privilege
■ Applies only to confessions heard or advice given by the priest
in his professional character and not to business arrangements
○ Executive Privilege
■ It is the power of the government to withhold information
from the public, the courts, and the Congress
■ Some privileged matters:
● 1. Military;
● 2. Diplomatic;
● 3. Other national security matters;
● 4. Information on investigations of crimes by law
enforcement agencies before the prosecution;
● 5. Presidential conversations, correspondence, and
discussions in closed-door cabinet meetings.
■ Executive privilege can be invoked only in relation to specific
categories of information and not to categories of persons.
(Senate v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1)
■ When Congress exercises its powers of inquiry, the department
heads are not exempt by the mere fact that they are department
heads. Accordingly, only one executive official may be
exempted from the power of inquiry of Congress – the
President upon whom executive power is vested and is beyond
the reach of Congress except through the power of
impeachment.
4. Testimonial Privilege** (Sections 25-26)
● Parental and Filial Privilege Rule
○ Two privileges are embodied in Sec. 25, the parental privilege rule and
the filial privilege rule
■ Parental privilege rule: a parent cannot be compelled to testify
against his child or other direct descendants
■ Filial privilege rule: a child may not be compelled to testify
against his parent or other direct descendants
Table of Contents
542
○ A person may testify against his parents or children voluntarily but if
he refuses to do so, the rule protects him from any compulsion
regardless of whether the case is civil or criminal.
○ However, the Family Code provides two exceptions when a descendant
may be compelled to give his testimony in a criminal case
■ When such testimony is indispensable in a crime committed
against said descendant; or
■ In a crime committed by one parent against the other
● Privilege Relating to Trade Secrets
○ Section 26. Privilege relating to trade secrets. – A person cannot be
compelled to testify about any trade secret, unless the non-disclosure
will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is
directed, the court shall take such protective measure as the interest of
the owner of the trade secret and of the parties and the furtherance of
justice may require.
○ The privileged nature of trade secrets is evident from various laws and
rules that seek to protect them from disclosure. The RPC and NIRC
endow a cloak of protection to trade secrets by punishing revelation
thereof by certain personnel. The Consumer Act prohibits the
revelation of any method or process which as a trade secret is entitled to
protection except when relevant to any judicial proceeding.
○ The privilege may not be invoked if the non-disclosure will conceal
fraud or otherwise work injustice.
5. Examination of a witness
● The examination of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in
open court and under oath or affirmation. The answers of the witnesses shall
be given orally excep if:
○ The witness is incapacitated to speak; or
○ The question calls for a different mode of answer
● The questions propounded to a witness and his answers thereto shal be
recorded.
● a. Rights and obligations of a witness
○ As a rule, a witness has an obligation to answer questions, although his
answer may tend to establish a claim against him There are questions
which he is not bound to answer on the basis of certain rights such as:
Table of Contents
543
■ Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a
penalty for an offense (right against self-incriminatiion;
foremost right)
■ To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting
questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor
■ Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to the
issue
■ Not to be detained longer than the interest of justice requires
■ Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his
reputation
● Xpns:
○ It is the very fact in issue; or
○ Refers to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed
■ Note: Must answer to the fact of his previous final conviction
for an offense
● b. Judicial Affidavit Rule [A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Jan. 1, 2013]
○ Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the judicial affidavit shall take the
place of direct testimonies of witnesses.
○ Applies to civil, criminal, administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings
but not to small claims cases under the Revised Rules on Small Claims.
○ A judicial affidavit must strictly adhere to the requirements set forth in
the rule and must include:
■ Answers to written questions prepared by the party's counsel
or a lawyer under their supervision.
■ A declaration that:
● The affiant is answering based on their personal
knowledge or based on authentic records.
● The affiant is aware of the obligation to tell the truth
and the consequences of perjury.
■ Information on:
● The names and addresses of the parties and the counsel
who conducted the examination.
● The date and place of the examination.
■ Any supporting documents or exhibits must be attached and
properly marked.
Table of Contents
544
○ Non-compliance with the content requirements = judicial affidavit
shall not be admitted by the court in evidence
○ The Judicial Affidavit Rule is not applicable:
■ When the court permits the presentation of oral testimony in
lieu of affidavits for compelling reasons.
■ When the witness is a hostile witness or requires extensive
cross-examination.
■ In cases where the affidavit cannot adequately capture nuances
in testimony, and oral examination is essential.
○ To be attached to the judicial affidavit are the documentary or object
evidence but the original need not be attached but the party or witness
is required to bring the original document or object evidence for
comparison with the attached copy, reproduction or pictures, during
the preliminary conference
■ Failure to bring the originals = the attached copy, reproduction
or pictures shall not be admitted
○ It shall also contain a sworn attestation by the lawyer who conducted
and supervised the examination that there was a faithful recording and
that there was no coaching
■ False attestation = disciplinary action, including disbarment
■ Non-compliance = JA not admitted by the court in evidence
○ Failure to submit JAs = waived their submission = no direct testimony
for that witness
6. Admissions and Confessions – Sections 27-34*
● Admissions are a voluntary acknowledgement made by a party of the existence
of the truth of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claims in an action
and refer only to acknowledgement of facts which, although may be
incriminating, falls short of admission of guilt
● A confession is the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the
offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, and is a specific
type of admission which refers only to an acknowledgement of guilt
● Admissions as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him
● Classification of admissions
○ Express admission - a positive statement or act
○ Implied admission - one which may be inferred from the declarations
Table of Contents
545
or acts of a person
○ Judicial admission - made in the courts of a judicial proceeding
○ Extrajudicial admission - one made out of court or even in a proceeding
other than the one under considerations
○ Adoptive admission - occurs when a person manifests his assent to the
statements of another person and may be received in evidence if it can
be shown that a party adopted the statements as his own
● Adoptive admission
○ A third person’s statement becomes the admission of the party
embracing or espousing it
○ May occur when a party
■ Expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by
another
■ Hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it
■ Utters an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of another
■ Replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by
another but ignores further points which he or she has heard
the other make; or
■ Reads and subsequently sigs a written statement made by
another
● An extrajudicial confession is not sufficient for conviction and must be
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti
● Admission by silence
○ It is an act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing
or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or
declaration is such as to naturally to call to action or comment if not
true, and when proper and possible for him to do so
○ For silence to be deemed an admission, it is necessary that:
■ 1. He heard and understood the statement;
■ 2. He was at liberty to make a denial;
■ 3. The statement was about a matter affecting his rights or in
which he was interested and which naturally calls for a
response;
■ 4. The facts were within his knowledge; and
■ 5. The fact admitted from his silence is material to the issue.
● a. Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
Table of Contents
546
○ Provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another.
○ Two branches
■ The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration, or omission of another
■ The rule that evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at
one time is not admissible to prove that on did or did not do
the same act at another time
○ Applies only to extrajudicial declarations
○ An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is
not admissible against his co-accused
○ First branch
■ Exceptions to the first branch
● Admission by a co-partner or agent
○ An agent performs some service in
representation of or on behalf of his principal
○ Requisites for admissibility:
■ 1. That the act or declaration is made
by a partner or agent of the party;
■ 2. That the act or declaration is made
within the scope of his authority;
■ 3. That the act or declaration is made
during the existence of the partnership
or agency;
■ 4. That the existence of the partnership
or agency is proven by evidence other
the act or declaration of the partner or
agent
● Admission by a co-conspirator
○ A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it
○ Requisites for admissibility:
■ 1. The declaration or act was made by a
conspirator;
■ 2. The declaration or act was made or
Table of Contents
547
done during the existence of the
conspiracy;
■ 3. The declaration or act must relate to
the conspiracy; and
■ 4. The conspiracy must be shown by
evidence other than such declaration or
act.
● Admission by privies
○ “Privies” are persons who are partakers or who
have an interest in any action or thing, or any
relation to another
○ Requisites for admissibility:
■ 1. There must be an act, declaration or
omission by a predecessor-in-interest;
■ 2. The act, declaration, or omission of
the predecessor must have occurred
while he was holding the title to the
property; and
■ 3. The act, declaration or omission
must be in relation to the property
○ An offer of compromise is not an admission of of any liability and is
not admissible in evidence in civil cases but one made by the accused,
or one authorized by him, may be received as an implied admission of
guilt in criminal cases
○ A plea of guilt later withdrawn is not admissible in evidence against the
accused
○ Second Branch: Evidence of similar conduct/Previous conduct as
evidence
■ The general rule is that the law will not consider evidence that a
person has done a certain act at a particular time as probative of
a contention that he has done a similar act at another time
■ A similar conduct which does not even sufficiently establish a
plan or scheme is not admissible
■ The rule prohibits the admission of the so-called “propensity
evidence” which is evidence that tends to show that what a
person has done at one time is probative of the contention that
Table of Contents
548
he has done a similar act at another time
■ Purposes when admissible
● Specific intent
●
●
●
●
●
Knowledge
Identity
Plan
System
Scheme
● Habit
● Custom
● Usage
● The like
● b. Admission by a party96
○ It is a statement, act, or conduct of a party, which is inconsistent with
their claim or defense in a case. It may be expressed or implied, and it
serves as evidence against the party who made it.
○ Characteristics
■ Admissions must be made knowingly, voluntarily, and without
duress.
■ An admission is probative if it contradicts the party's current
position or theory of the case.
■ An admission differs from a confession. A confession pertains
to acknowledging guilt in a criminal case, whereas an admission
can include acknowledgment of facts or circumstances that
may tend to establish liability or responsibility.
○ For an admission to be admissible as evidence, the following must be
established:
■ The Existence of the Statement: A clear and unequivocal
statement, act, or conduct must be shown.
■ Relevance to the Case: The statement must be material to the
issues at hand.
■ Voluntariness: It must have been made freely and without
coercion.
■ Party Against Whom it is Offered: The admission must be
96
Respicio & Co.
Table of Contents
549
made by a party to the case and is admissible against them.
○ Exceptions to Admissibility
■ Unreliable Statements: If made under duress, coercion, or
undue influence.
■ Irrelevant Statements: Statements unrelated to the facts in
issue.
■ Statements Made in Confidence: Such as statements protected
by privilege (e.g., attorney-client privilege).
○ Special Rules
■ Implied Admissions: Arise from a party's failure to deny
allegations in a pleading (Rule 8, Section 11).
● Example: Failure to respond to a request for admission
under Rule 26.
■ Adoptive Admissions: Occurs when a party adopts another
person's statement as their own by words, conduct, or silence
under circumstances that require a response.
■ Vicarious Admissions: Statements made by a party's agents or
representatives are admissible against the party if made within
the scope of their authority.
■ Admissions in Depositions or Interrogatories: Statements
made during depositions or interrogatories are admissible if
relevant.
■ Silence as an Admission: Silence may be construed as an
admission when the party is expected to respond under the
circumstances and fails to do so.
■ Pre-Trial Admissions: Admissions made during pre-trial
conferences, such as stipulations of facts, are binding and
cannot be contradicted unless allowed by the court.
● c. Offer of Compromise97
○ Rule
■ Offer of compromise not admissible. – In civil cases, an offer of
compromise is not an admission that anything is due, and is
not admissible in evidence against the offeror. In criminal cases,
except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or
97
Respicio & Co.
Table of Contents
550
those allowed by law to be compromised, the offer of
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital, or other
expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence
as proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
○ It…
■ Is a proposal to settle or resolve a dispute (civil or criminal) by
mutual concessions or by a certain payment.
■ Not an admission in civil cases.
■ May be deemed an implied admission of guilt in criminal cases
that cannot be the subject of compromise.
○ Civil v Criminal Cases
■ In civil cases
● General Rule: An offer of compromise in a civil case
cannot be taken as an admission of liability (i.e., “not
admissible in evidence against the offeror”).
● Effect: Even if a party offers a certain sum of money,
property, or some other consideration to settle a case,
such offer cannot be introduced to prove that the party
effectively concedes liability or the validity of the claim.
■ In criminal cases
● Criminal Cases NOT Subject to Compromise
○ Rule: In these cases (e.g., homicide, murder,
serious physical injuries), an offer of
compromise is admissible against the accused as
an implied admission of guilt.
○ Reason: Crimes are offenses against the State,
and generally, one cannot “buy” one’s peace in
such crimes. If an accused offers a compromise
in a case where the law does not allow
compromise, it is seen as tantamount to
acknowledging guilt or responsibility—since
there is no legitimate reason to settle an
otherwise non-compromisable offense.
● Criminal Cases Involving Quasi-Offenses or Offenses
Table of Contents
551
Allowed by Law to be Compromised
○ Quasi-offenses (Criminal Negligence): These
can sometimes be settled insofar as the civil
aspect is concerned (e.g., reckless imprudence
resulting in damage to property or slight
physical injuries), and an offer to settle may not
be used as evidence of guilt.
○ Offenses Expressly Allowed by Law to be
Compromised: Certain special laws or local
ordinances may allow direct settlement (for
instance, some local ordinances involving
minor infractions). In these cases, an offer to
compromise is not treated as an admission of
guilt.
○ 2nd par.
■ Such payments or offers cannot be introduced in court to
prove the payor’s negligence, fault, or guilt.
■ Does not bar other forms of evidence of negligence or liability.
It merely bars the fact of such payment (or offer) from being
used as proof of liability.
● d. Admission by a third party98
○ General Rule: Third-Party Statements are Hearsay
■ Under the hearsay rule, any out-of-court statement offered in
evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted is
inadmissible unless it falls under a recognized exception. An
admission by a third party is typically out-of-court and is
offered to prove the fact asserted in that statement; hence, it is
presumptively hearsay.
■ The immediate consequence of this classification is that
“admissions by strangers” to the litigation are not ordinarily
binding upon the parties, nor are they admissible to prove the
truth of what was stated—unless they fit into one of the
exceptions set out in the Rules of Court or recognized in
jurisprudence.
98
Respicio & Co.
Table of Contents
552
○ Exceptions to the General Rule
■ Admission by a Conspirator
● Applicable Rule: An act or declaration made by a
conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its
existence may be used against the other conspirators.
● Rationale: Co-conspirators are deemed agents of one
another in carrying out the crime or unlawful act, and
their statements about the enterprise (while it is
ongoing) are treated as admissions against all.
■ Admission by a Partner or Agent
● Applicable Rule: A statement made by a partner
concerning partnership affairs or by an agent
concerning a matter within the scope of the agency can
bind the principal or co-partners.
● Requirements:
○ Existence of the relationship of partnership or
agency;
○ The statement pertains to a matter within the
scope of the relationship;
○ The statement was made during the
subsistence of that relationship.
■ Admission by a Privy (Privity in Estate, Privity in Contract)
● If there is privity of estate (e.g., successor-in-interest,
heirs) or privity in contract (e.g., assignment of a right
or obligation), the admissions of a predecessor or
assignor may be used against the successor or assignee.
● Rationale: The law imposes the predecessor’s
admissions upon the successor in interest because the
latter steps into the shoes of the former.
■ Statement Against Interest (Rule 130, Section 39)
● While not strictly labeled as “admission by a third
party,” a statement against interest by an unavailable
declarant can be admissible as an exception to the
hearsay rule.
● Requirements:
○ The declarant must be unavailable to testify
Table of Contents
553
(e.g., deceased, mentally incompetent, absent,
etc.).
○ At the time the statement was made, it was so
far contrary to the declarant’s own pecuniary
or proprietary interest that a reasonable person
would not have made it unless believing it to be
true.
○ This can be relevant if the third party’s
declaration is directly adverse to his/her own
interest, thereby lending credibility to the
statement.
■ Admission Through Adoptive Acts
● A third party makes a statement in the presence of the
party, and the party adopts or acquiesces to that
statement under circumstances that would normally
call for a denial if the statement were untrue.
● In some jurisdictions recognized as “adoptive
admission.” Under Philippine law, this is akin to the
concept that silence may be an implied admission
where a party would ordinarily be expected to speak
out if the statement were false, provided certain
foundational requirements are met (e.g., they heard
and understood the statement, had an opportunity to
deny, and the situation called for a reply).
● e. Admission by a co-partner or agent99
○ The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by him or her,
or of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence,
may be given in evidence against the partner, principal, or conspirator
after the conspiracy (or partnership/agency) is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration.
○ Exception to the Hearsay Rule: Ordinarily, out-of-court statements
offered for the truth of the matter asserted are hearsay and are
inadmissible. Admissions by a co-partner or agent, however, are treated
as non-hearsay (or as an exception to the hearsay prohibition) because
99
Respicio & Co.
Table of Contents
554
the partner or agent is viewed as an alter ego or representative of the
principal party.
○ Binding on the Principal or Partnership: Because the agent’s or
co-partner’s statements made within the scope of their authority are
treated as those of the principal or partnership, they can be used against
such principal or partnership as direct evidence of admissions.
○ To ensure that the statement or act of a co-partner or agent is
admissible as an admission against the principal (or the partnership),
the following must be established:
■ Existence of a Partnership or Agency
● There must be independent evidence (other than the
statement itself) that a partnership or agency
relationship actually exists.
● The rule explicitly requires that the relationship be
shown by other proof. The statement alone cannot
create or prove the relationship.
● Courts require that the existence of the partnership or
agency be shown by competent evidence other than the
admission itself. If a party attempts to use the alleged
statement of the agent or partner as the sole evidence to
prove the agency or partnership, it fails under the rule.
■ Authority
● The partner or agent making the statement must be
authorized, either generally or specifically, to deal with
or speak on the subject matter of the statement.
● In a partnership, each partner is generally considered an
agent of the partnership for the usual scope of its
business. In agency, it must be shown that the agent
was acting within the bounds or scope of the authority
conferred.
■ During the Existence of the Relationship
● The statement or act must be made while the
partnership or agency exists. If the statement was made
after dissolution of the partnership or after the agency
was terminated, it will generally not be admissible as an
admission against the co-parties or principal.
Table of Contents
555
■ Relates to a Matter Within the Scope
● The declaration or act must concern the very matter
for which the partnership or agency was created or the
matter within the ordinary course of business or
authority of such a partner or agent.
● f. Admission by a conspirator100
○ This provision is an exception to the hearsay rule. Normally, a
statement made out of court and offered to prove the truth of the
matter asserted is inadmissible for being hearsay. However, when
certain requisites are met—specifically, the existence of a conspiracy
and that the statement was made during and in furtherance of said
conspiracy—the act or declaration becomes admissible against the
other conspirators.
○ To invoke Section 29, certain conditions must be strictly satisfied:
■ Existence of a Conspiracy
● There must be independent proof of conspiracy, other
than the act or declaration being offered. The
prosecution (or the party offering the evidence) cannot
prove conspiracy solely by the out-of-court statement
or act sought to be introduced; this would be
impermissible “bootstrapping.”
● Conspiracy may be proven by direct or circumstantial
evidence: e.g., showing concerted action, unity of
purpose, or the manner in which the offense was
executed.
■ The Statement or Act Must Relate to the Conspiracy
● It is not enough that the declarant is a member of the
conspiracy; the statement or act must refer to or be in
furtherance of the illicit design.
● Random remarks or declarations of a conspirator not
in pursuit of or relating to the objectives of the
conspiracy are not covered by this exception.
■ Timing: Made During the Existence (Pendency) of the
Conspiracy
100
Respicio & Co.
Table of Contents
556
● The rule applies only to acts or declarations made while
the conspiracy is ongoing.
● Once the conspiracy has ended—whether by
completion of its objective, by abandonment, or by
arrest—the conspirator’s subsequent statements are no
longer admissible as against the co-conspirators.
■ Competent Witness or Proper Identification of the
Statement/Act
● The testimony regarding the statement or act must
come from a witness with personal knowledge or
another mode permitted by the Rules of Evidence.
● Proper identification is crucial to establish who said or
did what, and when.
○ SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
■ Not a License for General Hearsay
● It does not mean that any statement of a conspirator
automatically binds all co-conspirators. It is strictly
confined to those statements (or acts) that relate to and
are made in furtherance of the conspiracy.
■ Requirement of Independent Evidence
● Courts are careful to ensure that the existence of a
conspiracy is first established by evidence distinct from
the conspirator’s statement in question. Otherwise, the
statement would improperly be the only proof of
conspiracy.
■ Does Not Cover Post-Conspiracy Statements
● Declarations admitting guilt, bragging about the crime,
or implicating co-conspirators after the plan has ended
are generally inadmissible under this rule.
● They may be admissible under other rules (e.g., as an
ordinary admission against interest by the declarant
himself) but not as an “Admission by a Conspirator”
that automatically binds the others.
● g. Admission by privies101
101
Respicio & Co.
Table of Contents
557
○ This is the principle that admissions by persons from whom a party
derives his or her interest (often labeled “privies”) are admissible in
evidence against the successor-in-interest.
○ Admissions by one who previously held the interest that is now held by
the present party (“predecessor in interest” or “privy”). They are
admissible against the successor if the predecessor’s statements pertain
to the subject matter of the transferred interest and were made before
or at the time the successor acquired the interest.
○ Privity refers to a legal relationship between two persons such that the
act, statement, or liability of one is binding on or can be asserted
against the other. The types of privity typically recognized are:
■ Privity in Blood – E.g., an heir succeeding to the rights of a
decedent.
■ Privity in Estate – E.g., a transferee (buyer, lessee) succeeds to
the estate or property rights of the transferor (seller, lessor).
■ Privity in Law – E.g., a relationship created by operation of
law, such as in certain successions or reorganizations.
○ When the successor or privy stands in the shoes of the original
declarant (predecessor), that successor/privy is bound by or subject to
the evidentiary effect of the predecessor’s admissions regarding the
subject matter in question.
○ Essential requisites for admission by privies
■ Existence of a Transfer or Succession of Interest: There must be
a valid transfer of interest (sale, assignment, inheritance, etc.) so
that the party against whom the admission is offered stands in
the shoes of the predecessor.
■ Admission Made by the Predecessor: The predecessor in
interest must have made a statement, declaration, act, or
omission that qualifies as an “admission.” Generally, these are
voluntary acknowledgments of fact relevant to the issues in the
case.
■ Pertinence to the Subject Matter: The statement must relate to
the same property or right that is the subject of the litigation or
legal controversy, such that the admission is directly relevant to
the present claim or defense.
■ Timing: Often, it is essential that the admission was made
Table of Contents
558
before or at the time the successor acquired the interest. The
logic is that a transferee who acquires an interest already
burdened by the admission should not be able to disclaim it.
○ If the admission was made after the successor already acquired the
interest, it may not bind the successor unless there is some additional
basis for vicarious liability or representation.
● h. Admission by silence102
○ Admission by silence (sometimes referred to as “tacit admission”) is a
doctrine under the Rules on Evidence which treats a party’s failure to
deny or object to a statement made in their presence as an implied
admission of the truth of that statement. It rests on the premise that a
person would ordinarily speak up to refute or deny a prejudicial
accusation if it were untrue or if circumstances permitted or compelled
a response. Thus, failure to refute or speak against a statement that one
would naturally deny if untrue may be used as evidence of an
admission.
○ Requisites for admission by silence
■ Statement or Act Was Made in the Presence of the Party
● The declaration or act must have occurred within the
hearing or observation of the party against whom it is
offered.
■ Opportunity and Capacity to Hear and Respond
● The party must have been in a position to understand
the statement and to speak or act in response.
● If the party is incapacitated, unaware, absent, or
otherwise unable to respond meaningfully (e.g.,
unconscious, intimidated, or not understanding the
language used), no admission by silence arises.
■ Circumstances Naturally Call for a Denial or Objection
● The statement or act is of such nature that a reasonable
person in the same situation would ordinarily deny or
object if it were untrue.
● If the circumstances do not normally call for a reaction,
or if it would be unnatural or imprudent to respond,
102
Respicio & Co.
Table of Contents
559
silence may not be considered as an admission.
■ Party Remains Silent
● The party fails to speak, protest, contradict, or
otherwise refute the statement.
● The silence must be voluntary and not coerced by fear,
threat, confusion, or a constitutional right (e.g., right
to remain silent in custodial investigations).
■ Relevance to the Case
● The statement that was allegedly “admitted” by silence
must be relevant to the issues under litigation or under
scrutiny.
■ When all these elements concur, the court may treat the party’s
silence as an implied admission of the statement’s truth.
○ Application in Criminal Cases
■ While admission by silence is recognized in both civil and
criminal cases, particular caution is exercised in criminal
proceedings because of the constitutional rights of the accused:
■ Right to Remain Silent
● The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides every
person the right to remain silent, especially in custodial
interrogations.
● Thus, if the silence was exercised in the context of a
custodial investigation (where the accused is entitled to
Miranda warnings), the prosecutor generally cannot
argue that the accused’s silence constituted an
admission of guilt.
● However, outside of a formal custodial setting—say in
a purely private conversation—silence might still be
used as implied admission if all the other requirements
are satisfied and there is no compulsion or
constitutional impediment.
■ Opportunity to Speak Without Duress
● Courts examine whether the accused remained silent of
their own free will or because of intimidation or
confusion.
● If the silence was induced by fear of harm or was
Table of Contents
560
otherwise involuntary, no admission by silence arises.
■ Weight and Credibility
● Even if admitted as evidence, an implied admission by
silence in a criminal case must still be carefully
scrutinized given the high standard of proof (“beyond
○
reasonable doubt”) required for conviction.
Application in Civil and Administrative Cases
■ In civil and administrative proceedings, the standard of proof is
generally lower (e.g., “preponderance of evidence” in civil cases
and “substantial evidence” in some administrative cases).
Hence, an admission by silence can carry more straightforward
evidentiary weight if:
● The parties are in a setting where a statement is made,
and the other party is expected to respond if the
statement is untrue.
● There is no constitutional right invoked (e.g., the right
to remain silent specifically in criminal matters).
● No intimidation or unusual circumstances exist that
justify silence.
● If these conditions are satisfied, the tribunal or court
can draw an inference that the silent party indeed
concedes or tacitly admits the statement.
○ Limitations and Exceptions
■ Not Conclusive Proof
● Admission by silence, like most implied admissions,
does not automatically carry conclusive weight. It can
be contradicted or explained away. The silent party may
offer a plausible explanation for the lack of response.
■ Contextual Factors
● Courts look at the totality of circumstances. If there
are cultural, psychological, or situational reasons for
silence (e.g., stunned shock, confusion, or fear), that
silence may lose its probative value.
■ Statements Made by Law Enforcement
● When law enforcement officials confront a suspect, the
suspect’s silence is normally deemed an exercise of the
Table of Contents
561
constitutional right to remain silent, not an admission
by silence. Such “silence” generally cannot be used to
imply guilt, especially after arrest or detention.
■ Invoking Privilege
● If a party invokes the privilege against
self-incrimination (in settings where it is legally
permissible to do so), that invocation cannot be treated
as an implied admission.
■ Ambiguity of the Statement
● If the statement that was allegedly “admitted” by
silence is vague or irrelevant, it may not be considered.
The statement must be specific enough to call for a
direct response or denial.
103
● i. Confession
○ Confession is a direct acknowledgment of guilt by an accused of the
offense charged or of any offense necessarily included therein. It goes
beyond a mere admission of specific facts tending to establish guilt; it is
a full, conscious acknowledgment of one’s criminal liability.
○ Essential Characteristics
■ Must be voluntary: The confession is given freely, without
coercion, force, intimidation, or any form of improper
influence.
■ Informed and intelligent: The confessant must fully
understand the nature and consequences of the confession.
■ Assistance of counsel: Under custodial investigation, the
absence of competent and independent counsel renders the
confession inadmissible.
■ Exactness: A confession is generally expected to encompass the
essential elements of the crime, including the direct
acknowledgment of guilt.
○ Requirements for Admissibility
■ Voluntariness
● The prosecution must prove that the confession was
not the product of threats, intimidation, or torture.
103
Respicio & Co.
Table of Contents
562
● Voluntariness is tested by examining all the
circumstances surrounding the giving of the statement
(e.g., the physical and mental condition of the accused,
the presence of counsel, length of interrogation, etc.).
● Case law emphasizes that even if an accused signs a
“waiver of rights,” that waiver must be made
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
■ Assistance of Competent and Independent Counsel
● Under custodial settings, counsel must be present.
Merely providing a lawyer of the police’s choice or a
lawyer who is not truly independent can render the
confession inadmissible.
● People v. Mahinay (G.R. No. 122485, 1 February
1999) enumerates the guidelines on what “competent
and independent counsel” means, stressing that the
lawyer must genuinely safeguard the rights of the
accused rather than simply appear to lend an aura of
validity to the investigation.
■ Proper Safeguards / Miranda Warnings
● The person under investigation must be informed in a
clear and understandable manner of the following
rights:
○ Right to remain silent;
○ That anything said can and will be used against
them in court;
○ Right to counsel;
○ Right to have counsel provided if they cannot
afford one.
● The warnings must be given in a language or dialect
understood by the accused; this is crucial in validating
the voluntariness of any resulting confession.
■ Written and Signed, or in a Language Understood by Accused
● Typically, confessions should be reduced to writing and
signed by the confessant. If the accused does not know
how to sign or read, the statement must be read and
translated to him or her by the counsel or the
Table of Contents
563
investigating officer in a language or dialect
understood.
● Non-compliance with these formalities may cast doubt
on the confession’s admissibility.
○ Judicial Scrutiny and Presumptions
■ Strict Judicial Scrutiny
● Courts strictly scrutinize confessions, mindful that
they are “evidence of a high and convincing character.”
● A confession is sometimes referred to as “the strongest
evidence of guilt,” but it can also be easily fabricated,
coerced, or psychologically manipulated. Thus, the
requirement for thorough scrutiny.
■ Presumption of Regularity vs. Presumption of Involuntariness
● While there may be a presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties, the Supreme Court has
ruled repeatedly that the burden lies on the
prosecution to prove compliance with the
constitutional safeguards for the confession to be
admissible.
● Any doubt as to voluntariness or legality of the
confession is generally resolved in favor of the accused.
■ Exclusionary Rule
● A confession obtained in violation of constitutional or
statutory rights is excluded. It cannot be used to prove
guilt.
● However, the “fruits” of such an unlawful confession
might still be used under certain doctrines if they can
be shown to have an independent source or are
inevitably discovered. But ordinarily, the direct use of
an illegally obtained confession is prohibited.
○ Waiver of Rights
■ Valid Waiver
● An accused may waive the right to counsel, but this
must be done knowingly and intelligently; meaning,
the accused fully understands the repercussions of
waiving the right to counsel.
Table of Contents
564
● The Supreme Court has made it clear that waivers are
not presumed and must be clearly and convincingly
shown.
■ Effect of Invalid Waiver
● If the purported waiver is invalid (e.g., the accused
merely signed a document without being truly
informed, or was coerced into doing so), the confession
is rendered inadmissible.
○ Extrajudicial vs. Judicial Confessions
■ Extrajudicial Confessions
● Made outside the court setting, typically during
custodial investigation or prior to trial.
● Governed heavily by constitutional safeguards (Section
12, Article III).
● Subject to challenges on voluntariness and compliance
with the right to counsel.
■ Judicial Confessions
● Made in open court, for example, when the accused
pleads guilty or makes a statement before the judge
admitting guilt.
● The court ensures the voluntariness of such
confessions by requiring that the accused be properly
informed of the consequences of such a plea or
statement, and by making a searching inquiry into the
accused’s understanding.
● j. Similar acts as evidence
○ Old rule: Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one
time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a
similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific
intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or
usage, and the like.
○ New rule: Evidence of similar acts, transactions or omissions is not
admissible to prove the character of a person or his/her conduct on a
particular occasion. It may, however, be admissible (a) to prove motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or the
absence of mistake or accident; or (b) to show the act or transaction
Table of Contents
565
was a part of a common scheme or plan.
○ Thus, as a general rule, similar acts evidence is inadmissible to show
propensity or predisposition
○ Exceptions: When “Similar Acts” May Be Admitted
■ To Prove Motive: Evidence of similar acts may be introduced to
show the existence of a motive to commit the act charged. For
instance, a series of similar disputes between the defendant and
the victim might reveal a motive such as revenge or financial
gain.
■ To Prove Opportunity: Similar acts might show a defendant’s
particular access or circumstances that made it possible for
them to commit the offense.
■ To Prove Intent or Specific Intent: Where intent is at issue
(e.g., distinguishing between mere negligence and intentional
wrongdoing), prior acts of a similar nature can shed light on
whether the act in question was deliberate or accidental.
■ To Prove Preparation or Plan: In certain crimes or civil cases,
evidence of a common plan or preparation (e.g., forging
documents in earlier instances or a repeated scheme to defraud)
is admissible to demonstrate the means or method by which
the act at bar was orchestrated.
■ To Prove Knowledge: If the defendant claims lack of
knowledge (e.g., “I was unaware this was illegal”), previous
similar transactions where the defendant clearly demonstrated
awareness can be shown to refute the claim of ignorance.
■ To Prove Identity:
■ Where the identity of the wrongdoer is controverted, evidence
of past acts bearing a “signature” or “modus operandi” can be
introduced to establish that the accused is the person
responsible (e.g., a unique pattern of break-ins).
■ To Disprove Mistake or Accident: If a defendant claims that
the incident was an accident or mistake, similar prior incidents
under comparable circumstances can be used to show that
repeated “coincidences” are unlikely.
■ To Prove Common Scheme or Plan: Evidence of prior or
subsequent acts that form part of a larger, integrated scheme is
Table of Contents
566
admissible. This is often invoked in complex fraud or
conspiracy cases where multiple steps or repeated patterns
show a single overarching plan.
■ Habit, Custom, or Usage (Old Rule Emphasis): Under the old
rule, habit or custom evidence was also explicitly recognized.
Although not always labeled the same in the revised rule,
evidence of a “habit” (a regular, semi-automatic response to a
repeated situation) may still be relevant to prove that the same
behavior occurred on the occasion in question.
7. Hearsay Rule; Exceptions – Sections 37-50*
● 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
● Unless the evidence falls under any of the recognized exceptions, hearsay
evidence is not admissible
● The rule that excludes hearsay evidence applies to both written and oral
statement
● To constitute hearsay, there must be
○ An out-of-court statement, oral written or nonverbal conduct, made
by one other than the one made by the declarant or witness testifying
at the trial; and
○ The out-of-court statement must be offered to prove the truth of the
matter asserted in the out-of-court statement
a. Hearsay distinguished from lack of firsthand knowledge
● Although hearsay evidence presupposes lack of personal knowledge of the
truth of the fact asserted by a witness, the purpose for which the evidence is
offered is a vital element of hearsay evidence
● It is the purpose for which the evidence is offered which would determine
whether the same is hearsay or not
● The rule requiring firsthand knowledge is that “a witness is qualified to testify
to a fact susceptible of observation, only if it appears that he had a reasonable
opportunity to observe the fact”
● On the other hand, hearsay is more aptly “a statement, other than one made by
the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove
Table of Contents
567
the truth of the matter asserted”
b. Reason for exclusion of hearsay evidence
● The rule excluding hearsay testimony rests mainly on the ground that there is
no opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom statements or writings
are attributed
● Moreover, the court is without opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay
statements by observing the demeanor of the person who made them
c. Exceptions to the hearsay rule
i. Dying declaration
● As a general rule, when a person is at the point of death, every motive
of falsehood is silenced, and the mind is induced by the most powerful
consideration to speak the truth, and therefore, the statements under
such circumstances deserve great weight.
● Dying declarations are admissible in favor of the defendant as well as
against him.
● The declarant’s belief in the imminence of his death can be shown by
the declarant’s own statements or from circumstantial evidence, such
as the nature of his wounds, statements made in his presence, or by the
opinion of his physician.
● Requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration:
○ 1. The declaration is one made by a dying person;
○ 2. The declaration is made by said dying person under the
consciousness of his impending death;
○ 3. The declaration refers to the cause and circumstances
surrounding the death of the declarant and not of anyone else;
○ 4. The declaration is offered in a case where the declarant’s
death is the subject of inquiry;
○ 5. The declarant is competent as a witness had he survived;
○ 6. The declarant should have died.
ii. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind
● Section 39. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind. – In an
action against an executor or administrator or other representative of a
deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or
Table of Contents
568
demand against the estate of such deceased person or against such
person of unsound mind, where a party or assignor of a party or a
person in whose behalf a case is prosecuted testifi es on a matter of fact
occurring before the death of the deceased person or before the person
became of unsound mind, any statement of the deceased or the person
of unsound mind, may be received in evidence if the statement was
made upon the personal knowledge of the deceased or the person of
unsound mind at a time when the matter had been recently perceived
by him or her and while his or her recollection was clear. Such
statement, however, is inadmissible if made under circumstances
indicating its lack of trustworthiness.
iii. Declaration against interest
● This exception refers to a declaration made by a person who, at the
time his declaration is presented in evidence, is already dead or unable
to testify
● This declaration must be one which, when made, was known to the
declarant himself to be against his interest, pecuniary or moral, and
which would not have been made unless he believed it to be true
● It is not only necessary that a declaration against interest was made but
also that the declarant knew that the statement was against his interest
and which he would not have made had it not been true
iv. Act or declaration about pedigree
● Requisites for the admissibility of act or declaration about pedigree:
○ 1. The declarant is dead, or unable to testify;
○ 2. The declarant is related by birth or marriage to the person
whose pedigree is in issue;
○ 3. The declaration was made before the controversy;
○ 4. The relationship between the two persons is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration.
v. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
● Requisites:
○ 1. A statement by a member of the family either by
consanguinity or affinity;
Table of Contents
569
○ 2. The statement is about the reputation or tradition of the
family is respect to the pedigree of any member of the family;
and
○ 3. The reputation or tradition is one existing previous to the
controversy.
vi. Common reputation
● Common reputation is admissible in evidence where the reputation
refers to a matter of public or general interest, or respecting marriage or
moral character and said matter is more than thirty (30) years old
● The common reputation must likewise be one existing prior to the
controversy and may be established by monuments and inscriptions
● Although it is hearsay, it is admissible because of trustworthiness
● While common reputation in the community may establish a matter of
public or general interest, marriage or moral character, it cannot
establish pedigree, which is established by reputation in the family
vii. Part of the res gestae
● Res gestae consist of spontaneous statements and verbal acts
● The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is
whether the act, declaration, exclamation is so intimately interwoven or
connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be
regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly
negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.
● It has been held that 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.
● Requisites for the admissibility of spontaneous statements:
○ 1. There is a startling event or occurrence taking place;
○ 2. A statement was made while the event is taking place or
immediately prior to or subsequent thereto;
○ 3. The statement was made before the declarant had time to
contrive or devise falsehood; and
○ 4. 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
Table of Contents
570
circumstances.
● Requisites for the admissibility of verbal acts:
○ 1. The principal act to be characterized must be equivocal;
○ 2. The equivocal act must be material to the issue;
○ 3. The statement must accompany the equivocal act; and
○ 4. The statement gives a legal significance to the equivocal act.
viii. Records of regularly conducted business activity
● Requisites for the admissibility of verbal acts:
○ 1. The principal act to be characterized must be equivocal;
○ 2. The equivocal act must be material to the issue;
○ 3. The statement must accompany the equivocal act; and
○ 4. The statement gives a legal significance to the equivocal act.
ix. Entries in official records
● Requisites for the admissibility of entries in official records:
○ 1. The entry was made by a public officer or by another person
specially enjoined by law to do so;
○ 2. It was made by the public officer, or by such other person in
the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and
○ 3. The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge
of the facts by him or her stated, which must have been
acquired by the public officer or other person personally or
through official information..
x. Commercial lists and the like
● Section 47. 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.
● Certain commercial lists and reports of matters of interest to persons
engaged in a particular occupation are admissible in evidence as
exceptions to the hearsay rule, provided, they are made by persons
engaged in that occupation and are generally used and relied upon by
Table of Contents
571
them and those lists and reports are published
xi. Learned treatises
● Section 48. 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 or her profession or calling as expert in the subject.
● History books and published findings of scientists fall within this
exception provided that an expert on the subject testifies to the
expertise of the writer or the court takes judicial notice of such fact.
xii. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
● The testimony contemplated is one given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and
subject matter
● The testimony is given by one who is now deceased or out of the
Philippines or who cannot, with due diligence, be found therein, or is
unavailable or otherwise unable to testify
● Said testimony may be given in evidence against the adverse party
provided the latter had the opportunity to cross examine the witness
who gave the previous testimony
● For such testimony to be admissible, the following requisites must be
satisfied
○ (a) the witness is dead or otherwise unable to testify;
○ (b) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same parties
or those representing the same interests;
○ (c) the former case involved the same subject as that in the
present case, although on different causes of action;
○ (d) the issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the
same issue involved in the present case; and
○ (e) the adverse party has an opportunity to cross-examine the
witness in the former case
Table of Contents
572
xiii. Residual exception
● Section 50. Residual exception. – A statement not specifi cally covered
by any of the foregoing exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that
(a) the statement is off ered as evidence of a material fact; (b) the
statement is more probative on the point for which it is off ered than
any other evidence which the proponent can procure through
reasonable eff orts; and (c) the general purposes of these [R]ules and
the interests of justice will be best served by admission of the statement
into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this
exception unless the proponent makes known to the adverse party, suffi
ciently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial stage in the case of
a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse party with a fair
opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent’s intention to offer
the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address
of the declarant.
8. Opinion rule
● GENERAL RULE. — The opinion of witness is not admissible, except as
indicated in the following sections.
● Opinion of expert witness (Sec. 49)
○ 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. (BAR)
○ Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive. When faced with
conflicting expert opinions, courts give weight and credence to that
which is more complete, thorough and scientific. (Bacalso v. Padigos,
552 SCRA 185)
○ The resort to handwriting experts, although helpful in the examination
of forged documents because of the technical procedure involved in
analyzing them, is not mandatory or indispensable to the examination
or comparison of handwriting, and a finding of forgery does not
entirely depend upon the testimony of these experts. (Libres v. Delos
Santos, 554 SCRA 642)
● Opinion of ordinary witnesses (Sec. 50)
○ The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be
Table of Contents
573
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
9. Character evidence
● Character is the aggregate of the moral qualities which belong to and
distinguish an individual person. While character is what the person really is,
reputation is what he is supposed to be in accordance to what people say he is
and is dependent on how people perceive him to be.
● Character evidence is any testimony or document offered to prove that a
person acted in conformity with a character or trait on a particular occasion. It
typically refers to moral traits.
● Character evidence is, as a rule, not admissible. 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.
● The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as legally
irrelevant in determining a controversy, so that evidence relating thereto is not
admissible.
● a. Criminal cases
○ In criminal proceedings, this means that the prosecution cannot
ordinarily present evidence of the accused’s bad moral character to
show a propensity for wrongdoing or to suggest that the accused is the
type of person who would commit the crime charged. Similarly, the
defense is typically restricted from parading good-character evidence
unless it meets certain criteria laid down by the Rules.
○ In criminal cases, an accused can voluntarily offer evidence of good
moral character to show that it is improbable for him or her to have
committed the crime charged. If the accused does so, the prosecution
may rebut the evidence.
○ Exceptions
Table of Contents
574
■ When the Accused Presents Evidence of Good Character
● Initiative by the Accused
○ The accused in a criminal case is explicitly
allowed to introduce evidence of his or her
good moral character when it is pertinent to
the nature of the offense charged.
● Form of Evidence
○ Reputation
and
Opinion
Testimony:
Traditionally, proof of character is presented
via testimony on reputation (what the
community or associates say about the person’s
moral standing) or opinion (what a qualified
witness personally observes or believes about
the accused’s character traits).
○ Specific Instances of Conduct: As a rule,
specific acts are not used to prove character
(except in certain impeachment scenarios or
when character is directly in issue). The general
approach is to rely on a witness's personal
knowledge of the accused’s reputation or
personal dealings.
■ When the Prosecution Rebuts the Accused’s Good Character
Evidence
● Once the accused “opens the door” by offering
evidence of good character, the prosecution may, in
turn, present bad character evidence to rebut or
disprove the accused’s claim. This is the principle of
fair play and reciprocity:
○ The prosecution’s introduction of contrary
evidence must be limited to the specific trait or
character area that the accused placed in issue.
○ The prosecution cannot exceed the scope
introduced by the defense. For example, if the
accused claimed to be a peace-loving
individual, the prosecution can rebut that
particular assertion by showing a reputation for
Table of Contents
575
violence or aggression.
■ Character of the Offended Party (Victim)
● In certain criminal cases, the character or reputation of
the offended party (i.e., the victim) may also be
relevant. Typically, the defense might present negative
character evidence about the victim (e.g., in homicide
or assault cases, to show that the victim was the
aggressor or had a violent disposition). However,
courts scrutinize such evidence carefully to ensure it
genuinely relates to a material issue—like
self-defense—and not simply to smear the victim.
■ Character in Impeachment of Witness Credibility
● Character evidence can also be used to impeach the
credibility of a witness in a criminal case. While not
strictly the same as offering character evidence to show
conformity with prior conduct, it still falls under the
umbrella of character evidence rules.
● Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude: A witness may be
impeached if he or she has been convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude (e.g., perjury, fraud, theft).
This goes to credibility rather than to guilt for the
offense charged.
● Reputation for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness: Parties
may present evidence of a witness’s reputation for
truthfulness or its opposite to affect the weight of the
witness’s testimony.
● b. Civil cases
○ Evidence of the moral character of a party in a civil case is admissible
only when pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case. In
both civil and criminal cases, evidence of the moral character of a party
in a civil case is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character
involved in the case.
○ In civil cases, the necessity for proving moral character is narrowly
confined to situations where the character trait itself is part of the
substantive claim or defense. Unless character is squarely in issue, it
remains inadmissible.
Table of Contents
576
○ A. General Rule: Inadmissibility
■ “Character is not in issue”: In most civil suits, the moral
character of a party is not the crux of the controversy. For
instance, in a typical breach of contract or collection of sum of
money case, the personal character of either party (whether
they are honest, kind, or temperamental) has no bearing on
determining whether an obligation was breached or a debt is
owed.
■ Prohibition on use for proving conduct: The general rule bars
using character evidence to prove that because a party or
individual has a certain character trait (e.g., dishonesty), they
must have acted in conformity with that trait (e.g., they must
have committed fraud).
○ B. Exception: When Character is “In Issue”
■ Although the default position is inadmissibility, character
evidence may be admitted in a civil case if a party’s character is
directly and necessarily in issue or relevant to the resolution of
the dispute. Common examples include: Defamation (Libel or
Slander) Cases, Civil Cases Involving Moral Damages, Child
Custody or Guardianship Cases, Psychological Incapacity in
Nullity of Marriage, Insanity or Other Mental Condition.
○ C. Scope and Manner of Proof
■ Reputation or Opinion Evidence
● Character can be proved by testimony of reputation in
the community (persons familiar with the party’s
standing, reputation, or conduct in the community) or
by opinion testimony from a witness who has had
sufficient contact and familiarity with the person.
■ Specific Instances of Conduct
● Under Philippine practice, specific acts may be
introduced if they are relevant to prove a character trait
in issue. However, the court often exercises discretion
to avoid confusing the jury (or judge in bench trials)
and to prevent undue prejudice or time-consuming
collateral inquiries.
● In civil cases, if a party’s entire moral standing is
Table of Contents
577
claimed to be directly in issue (e.g., defamation
involving allegations of dishonesty), specific instances
of the party’s conduct relevant to honesty or
dishonesty may be presented, subject to the rules on
relevancy and subject to the trial judge’s discretion.
■ Limitations and Court’s Discretion
● Courts strictly limit the introduction of character
evidence to prevent “trial by character” or attempts to
smear a party or witness. Even if character is arguably
relevant, the court may exclude it under the Rule on
Relevancy and Materiality (Rule 128, Sections 4-6) and
the balancing test under Rule 132 (for mode of
presentation) if it is deemed unduly prejudicial,
confusing, or cumulative.
● c. In criminal and civil cases
○ As a general principle in both civil and criminal cases, character
evidence is not admissible if it is offered solely to prove that a person
acted in conformity with their character on a particular occasion.
○ In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a
person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation
or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination,
inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct.
○ In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an
essential element of a charge, claim or defense, proof may also be made
of specific instances of that person’s conduct
○ Good or bad moral character of a witness is generally not admissible to
prove the truthfulness of his or her testimony unless the opposing
party has impeached that witness’s credibility.
■ Once attacked, the witness’s proponent may present evidence
of the witness’s reputation for truthfulness.
■ Conversely, the impeaching party may present evidence of a
witness’s reputation for dishonesty or prior convictions
involving moral turpitude to cast doubt on the witness’s
credibility.
Table of Contents
578
10. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness [A.M. No. 004-07-SC]
● When a minor (child) is called to testify in court:
○ The child’s psychological and emotional well-being is protected.
○ The testimony is facilitated in a manner that is both just and effective.
○ The rights of all parties are balanced with the child’s best interests.
● Applies to all civil and criminal proceedings involving child witnesses such as
child victims or child witnesses in cases or when a child’s testimony is relevant
or deemed crucial
● Under the Rule, every child is presumed competent to testify, unless the court
determines otherwise based on clear and convincing evidence.
● The traditional requirement of proving a minor’s competency by showing
understanding of the obligation to tell the truth has been liberalized. Instead,
the focus is on the child’s ability to observe, recall, and communicate facts. The
child witness need not give a standard oath if the court finds that the child
cannot understand its nature due to age or developmental level.
● No Disqualification by Reason of Immaturity: A child’s testimony should not
be automatically discredited because of age or perceived inability to fully
comprehend the events.
● The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link
television if there is a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer trauma
from testifying in the presence of the accused, 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.
I. Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence (Rule 131)**
● 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.
○ It is the obligation of a party to a litigation to persuade the court that he is
entitled to relief (i.e. prove what he alleges).
○ The burden of proof lies with “the party who alleges the existence of a fact or
thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” It rests with the
party who wants to establish a legal right in his favor. Thus, the party who will
fail if he offers no competent evidence has the burden of proof.
○ A mere allegation is not evidence, and he who alleges has the burden of proving
his allegation with the requisite quantum of evidence.
○ The burdens of proof of both parties are fixed by their pleadings, the plaintiff
Table of Contents
579
to his claim and the defendant to his defenses, and such burdens do not shift
during the course of the trial.
● Burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow
the prima facie evidence against him.
○ This may shift from one side to the other as the exigencies of the trial require,
and shifts with alternating frequency. hen one party has presented evidence
that weighs heavily in his favor, the other party has the burden to come forward
with his own evidence.
● Equipoise rule or equiponderance doctrine; rule of “lenity”
○ Based on the principle that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law, the doctrine refers to a situation where the
evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, or there is no doubt on which side
the evidence preponderates (or weighs more heavily). In this case, the decision
should be against the party with the burden of proof. In civil cases, it is against
the plaintiff. In criminal cases, it is against the prosecution
J. Presumptions (Rule 131)**
● A presumption is an assumption of fact resulting from a rule of law which requires
such fact to be assumed from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise
established in the action
● 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. It merely affects the burden of offering
evidence. It is mandatory unless rebutted.
● While an inference is a factual conclusion that can rationally be drawn from other
facts, a presumption is a rule of law directing that if a party proves certain facts then the
factfinder must accept an additional, or presumed, fact as proven unless sufficient
evidence is introduced tending to rebut the presumed fact.
● Presumptions are classified into presumptions of law and presumptions of fact and the
former may be further classified as either conclusive or disputable.
○ A presumption of fact does not arise from any direction of law but because
reason itself allows a presumption from the facts
○ A legal presumption arise by virtue of a law such as the presumption of
innocence of an accused and the presumption of negligence of common
carriers in case of death or injuries to passenger
○ A party in whose favor the legal presumption exits may rely on and invoke such
legal presumption to establish a fact in issue and need not introdue evidence
Table of Contents
580
○ A conclusive, or irrefutable, presumption is an inference which the law makes
so peremptory that it will not allow them to be overturned by any contrary
proof however strong
○ A presumption is disputable or rebuttable if it may be contradicted or
overcome by other evidence. It is satisfactory if uncontradictied but its force
disappears when evidence that rebuts it is introduced.
● 1. Conclusive Presumptions
○ It is not a presumption but is a substantive rule of law directing that proof of
certain basic facts conclusively proves an additional fact which, on the grounds
of expediency or public policy, cannot be rebutted
○ A presumption which becomes irrebuttable upon the presentation of the
evidence and any evidence tending to rebut the presumption is not admissible;
inferences which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow them to be
overturned by any contrary proof however strong
○ The conclusive presumptions under the Rules of Court, which are based on
the doctrine of estoppel, are:
■ (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; (Estoppel in pais or estoppel by conduct)
■ (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
○ Under the doctrine of estoppel, the person making the representation cannot
claim benefit from the wrong he himself committed
○ Estoppel in pais under Section 2 (a)
■ Essential elements of estoppel in pais in relation to the party sought to
be stopped:
● 1. Conduct amounting to false representation or concealment
of material facts; or at least calculated to convey the impression
that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those
which the party subsequently attempts to assert;
● 2. Intent, or at least, expectation, that this conduct shall be
acted upon by, or at least influence, the other party; and
● 3. Knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts.
Table of Contents
581
■ Essential elements of estoppel in pais in relation to the party invoking
the estoppel in his favor:
● 1. Lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the
truth as to the facts in question;
● 2. Reliance, in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of
the party to be estopped;
● 3. Action or inaction based thereon of such character as to
change the position or status of the party claiming the
estoppel, to his injury, detriment or prejudice.
○ The estoppel in Section 2(b) of Rule 131 applies even though the lessor had no
title at the time the relation of lessor and lessee was created, and may be asserted
not only by the original lessor, but also by those who succeed to his title.
(Golden Horizon v. Sy Chuan, 365 SCRA 593) This is so because the relation
of lessor and lessee does not depend on the former’s title but on the agreement
between the parties, followed by the possession of the premises by the lessee
under such agreement. As long as the latter remains in undisturbed possession,
it is immaterial whether the lessor has a valid title – or any title at all – at the
time the relationship was entered into.
● 2. Disputable Presumptions
○ The effect of a [disputable] presumption upon the burden of proof is to create
the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created by the
presumption. If no contrary proof is offered, the presumption will prevail.
○ Disputable presumptions under the Rules of Court
■ The disputable presumptions under Section 3 of Rule 131 are:
● (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 or
her voluntary act;
● (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his or her 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;
Table of Contents
582
● (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 possesses, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him or her;
● (k) That a person in possession of an order on himself or
herself 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 indorsement of a 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 [(7)] years, it being
unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he or she is
considered dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
○ The absentee shall not be considered dead for the
Table of Contents
583
purpose of opening his or her succession until after an
absence of ten [(10)] years. If he or she disappeared
after the age of seventyfi ve [(75)] years, an absence of fi
ve [(5)] years shall be suffi cient in order that his or her
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 which is missing, who has
not been heard of for four [(4)] 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 [(4)] years;
■ (3) A person who has been in danger of death
under other circumstances and whose existence
has not been known for four [(4)] years; and
■ (4) If a married person has been absent for four
[(4)] consecutive years, the spouse present may
contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has
a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is
already dead. In case of disappearance, where
there is a danger of death[, under] the
circumstances hereinabove provided, an
absence of only two [(2)] years shall be suffi
cient for the purpose of contracting a
subsequent marriage. However, in any case,
before marrying again, the spouse present must
institute summary proceeding[s] as provided in
the Family Code and in the rules for
declaration of presumptive death of the
absentee, without prejudice to the eff ect 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
Table of Contents
584
course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life;
● (z) That persons acting as copartners have entered into a
contract of copartnership;
● (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 a void marriage, has been obtained by their
joint eff orts, 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 acquired
property 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 [(300)] 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 (180) days
after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is
considered to have been conceived during [the former]
marriage, [provided] it be born within the three
hundred [(300)] days after the termination of the
former marriage; and
○ (2) A child born after one hundred eighty (180) days
following the celebration of thesubsequent marriage is
considered to have been conceived during such
marriage,
● even though it be born within the three hundred [(300)] 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 that nature;
● (ff) That the law has been obeyed;
● (gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be
Table of Contents
585
printed or published by public authority, was so printed or
published;
● (hh) That a printed or published book, purporting to 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 or her when such presumption is necessary to perfect the
title of such person or his or her successor in interest;
● (jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two [(2)]
persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or
confl agration, and it is not shown who died fi rst, 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 [(15)] years, the
older is deemed to have survived;
○ 2. If both were above the age of sixty [(60)], the
younger is deemed to have survived;
○ 3. If one is under fifteen [(15)] and the other above
sixty [(60)], the former is deemed to have survived;
○ 4. If both be over fi fteen [(15)] and under sixty [(60)],
and the sex be diff erent, the male is deemed to have
survived, if the sex be the same, the older; and
○ 5. If one be under fi fteen [(15)] or over sixty [(60)],
and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed
to have survived;
● (kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two [(2)] or more
persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of
them died fi rst, 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.
■ The presumption that “evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse
if produced” (e) does not apply if:
● The evidence is at the disposal of both parties
Table of Contents
586
● The suppression was not willful
● It is merely corroborative or cumulative; and
● The suppression is an exercise of a privilege such as it is covered
by the privileged communication between physician and
patient
■ The presumption that “official duty has been regularly performed” or
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions
(m)
● It cannot work if the records reveal severe lapses in complying
with the requirements provided for under law.
● It cannot, by itself, overcome the presumption of innocence
since the former does not constitute proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
● It does not apply in a petition for a writ of amparo not does it
apply in custodial investigation
○ Presumptions under other laws
■ One of the most significant presumptions, which is not found in the
Rules of Court, is the constitutional presumption of innocence (Sec.
14 [2], Art. III, 1987 Consti.), which is enjoyed by the accused until
final conviction and which requires the prosecution to stand on its
own strength and not rely on the weakness of the defense.
■ There is a presumption that employers and owners or managers of
establishments, among others, have been negligent in case those under
them have caused damage to another (NCC 2180).
■ A driver is presumed to have been negligent if he had been found guilty
of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within
the next preceding two month (NCC 2184)
■ A defendant is presumed negligent if death or injury results from his
possession of dangerous weapons or substances, unless such are
indispensable in his occupation or business (NCC 2188)
■ Common carriers are presumed to have been negligent in case of death
of or injuries to passengers unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence (NCC 1756)
K. Offer and Objection (Rule 132)**
● 1. Offer of Evidence
Table of Contents
587
○ Under the Rules of Court, the court shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered
○ A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to base their findings of
fact and their judgment solely and strictly upon the evidence offered by the
parties at the trial.
○ To allow parties to attach any document to their pleadings and then expect the
court to consider it evidence, even without formal offer and admission, may
draw unwarranted consequences. Opposing parties will be deprived of their
chance to examine the document and to object to its admissibility. On the
other hand, the appellate court will have difficulty reviewing documents not
previously scrutinized by the court below.
○ A document, or any article, is not evidence when it is simply marked for
identification since 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 it
○ When formal offer of evidence is not required (BAR):
■ 1. In a summary proceeding, because it is a proceeding where there is
no full-blown trial;
■ 2. Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial notice of;
■ 3. Documents, affidavits and depositions used in rendering a summary
judgement;
■ 4. Documents or affidavits used in deciding quasi-judicial or
administrative cases;
■ 5. Lost objects previously marked, identified, described in the record,
and testified to by witnesses who had been subjects of
cross-examination in respect to said objects.
○ When evidence was not formally offered, the failure to object to the omission
and the cross-examination of the witness by the adverse party, taken together,
constitute a waiver of the defect. (People v. Libnao, 395 SCRA 407)
○ The court shall consider the evidence solely for the purpose for which it is
offered, not for any other purpose. (Spouses Ragudo v. Fabella Estate Tenants,
466 SCRA 136)
○ Evidence not formally offered allowable if certain requirements are present
■ The evidence must have been duly identified by testimony duly
recorded; and
■ The same must have been incorporated in the records of the case
Table of Contents
588
● 2. When to make an offer
○ As regards the testimony of the witness, the offer is to be made at the time the
witness is called to testify
○ As regards 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 done in writing.
○ 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.
● 3. Objection
○ When made
■ Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after
the offer is made.
■ Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal off er must
be made as soon as thewitness begins to testify.
■ Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral
examination of a witness must be made as soon as the grounds therefor
become reasonably apparent.
○ Purposes of objections
■ 1. To keep out inadmissible evidence that would cause harm to a
client’s cause;
■ 2. To protect the record;
■ 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;
and
■ 6. To avoid a waiver of the inadmissibility of an otherwise inadmissible
evidence.
○ The grounds for the objections must be specified. The rule is that a specific
objection is always preferred over a general objection. The rule, however, does
not impose a general or absolute ban on general objections.
○ Two kinds of objections:
Table of Contents
589
■ 1. Formal – one directed against the alleged defect in the formulation
of the question
● a. Ambiguous questions
● b. Leading and misleading questions
● c. Repetitious questions;
● d. Multiple questions
● e. Argumentative questions
■ 2. Substantive – 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
●
●
●
●
a. Parol
b. Not the best evidence
c. Hearsay
d. Privileged communication
● e. Not authenticated
● f. Opinion
● g. Res inter alios acta
○ The objection should be made timely. It must be made at the earliest
opportunity.
○ The objection to evidence cannot be made for the first time on appeal, both
because the party who has failed to timely object becomes estopped from
raising the objection afterwards; and because to assail the judgement of the
lower court upon a cause as to which the lower court had no opportunity to
pass upon and rule is contrary to basic fairness and procedural orderliness.
(LBP v. Nable, 675 SCRA 233)
○ Failure to object to an evidence is a waiver of the objection. The right to object
is merely a privilege which the party may waive. For instance, even assuming ex
gratia argument that certain documents are inadmissible for being hearsay, the
same may be admitted to on account of failure to object thereto. (Manliclic v.
Calaunan, 512 SCRA 642)
○ The waiver of the objection is only a waiver to the objections to the evidence’s
admissibility, that is, to its relevance and competence. The waiver should not
be construed as an admission that the evidence is credible.
○ When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a
witness that the question being propounded are of the same class as those to
which objection has been made, whether such objection was sustained or
Table of Contents
590
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.
○ The ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made,
unless the court desires to take a 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.
○ 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.
○ When a motion to strike an answer may be availed of:
■
■
■
■
1. When the answer is premature;
2. When the answer of the witness is irrelevant;
3. When the answer is unresponsive;
4. When the witness becomes unavailable for crossexamination
through no fault of the cross-examining party; or
■ 5. When the testimony was allowed conditionally and the condition for
its admissibility was not fulfilled.
● 4. Tender of excluded evidence or offer of proof
○ Tender of Excluded Evidence (or Offer of Proof) is a procedural mechanism
wherein the party whose evidence has been disallowed by the court makes a
formal offer, accompanied by a short statement or explanation of what the
excluded evidence would have shown had it been admitted, and/or appends the
excluded documentary or object evidence to the record
○ The rule ensures that if a trial court excludes evidence—whether testimonial or
documentary—the proponent of such evidence can still preserve that evidence
on the record.
○ A tender of excluded evidence is typically made immediately after the court
rules against the admissibility of the proffered evidence.
○ Delay or failure to make a tender of excluded evidence can result in waiver of
the right to have that evidence considered on appeal.
○ Formal offer of evidence vs formal offer of proof
■ Formal offer of evidence refers either to the offer of the testimony of
Table of Contents
591
witness prior to the latter’s testimony, or the offer of the documentary
and object evidence after a party has presented hus testimonial
evidence
■ Offer of proof is the process by which a proponent of an excluded
evidence tenders the same
● If what has been excluded is testimonial evidence, the tender is
made by stating for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the proposed witness and the substance of his
proposed testimony.
● If the evidence excluded is documentary or of other things, the
offer of proof is made by having the same attached to or made a
part of the records
○ The Rules of Court does not prohibit a party from requesting the court to
allow it to present additional evidence even after it has rested its case.
Table of Contents
592