hlp©2009 Page 1 3/16/20181

EVIDENCE Equiponderance Accused is Party who

Rule acquitted loses is the
Introduction one who has
Definition – the means, sanctioned by these burden of
rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, proof
the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Presence of More than One suffices
Sec. 1.) Circumstantial one is
Scope of applicability – rules of evidence shall Evidence required
be the same in all courts and in all trials and Priviliged Not Applicable
hearings, except as otherwise provided by law Communication- applicable
or these rules. (Rule 128, Sec 2.) Dr.-Patient
Compulsion as a Cannot No prohibition,
Notes: The Rules on Evidence apply only when witness compel rules provides
there is going to be a trial. Note that there can accused to only
be a judgment on pleadings, by confession, be a limitations
consent and compromise etc. IN CIVIL CASES. witness
Mere denial in the answer in a CIVIL CASE will
not present a probandum hence no need for the
court to try the case. Such general denial will Evidentiary Privilege- entitles the privilege
be considered as an admission. holder to withhold competent evidence and, in
In CRIMINAL CASES, We have to wait some circumstances, to prevent others from
until the accused enters a plea. This time a revealing such evidence. The privilege is
general denial is allowed. If the accused enters granted when the protected interest is
a plea of guilty there is no probandum. considered important enough to outweigh the
However in CRIMINAL CASES, the court could concern with determining the truth. The
still try the case if the case involves a heinous privilege holder need not be a party to the
crime. proceeding in question. Unlike a disqualification,
The Rules on evidence are not self- a privilege can be waived. Privileges are often
executing. So the rule is any evidence intended to preserve confidential relationships.
submitted will be admitted so long as there is
no objection. This principle is only for the
Executive Privilege- members of the
purpose of admissibility. It does not mean that
executive branch of government cannot legally
the court will take these irrelevant evidence in
be forced to disclose their confidential
evaluating on the merits of the case.
communications when such disclosure would
adversely affect the operations or procedures of
DIFFERENCE IN RULES ON EVIDENCE the executive branch.
IN CRIMINAL CASES AND CIVIL CASES
BASIS Criminal Civil Case FACTUM PROBANDUM vs. FACTUM
Case PROBANS
Quantum of Proof Preponderance Factum Probandum-proposition to be
Proof Beyond of evidence established. The fact/s in issue.
Reasonable Factum Probans- materials evidencing the
Doubt proposition
Denial General Must be
Denial Specific Denial Notes: 1. In both CIVIL and CRIMINAL cases,
Allowed the probandum contained in the pleadings
Withdrawal of Withdrawn Judicial could be changed in the pre-trial order.
Plea/Admission plea is Admission However, with respect to CRIMINAL CASES, the
inadmissible withdrawn pre-trial order SHOULD NOT substantially
becomes an change the accusation/indictment contained in
extrajudicial the information, otherwise the case will be
admission dismissed.
Cross Applicable Not applicable 2. A court can validly try a fact in issue
Examination in not raised in the pleadings or pre-trial order.
Summary Rule 10 provides that a fact in issue may be
Procedure
 hlp©2009
raised with the express or implied consent of
the parties during the trial (Amendment to
conform to evidence)
3. Ascertainment of probandum does
not apply in special proceedings. (i.e. If there is
a petition for probate of a will, even if there is
no opposition the petitioner is still required by
law to prove that the will has been duly
executed in accordance with the Civil Code)
EVIDENCE vs. PROOF
Proof- is the effect of evidence. It is the
probative effect of evidence and is the
conviction or persuasion of the mind resulting
from a consideration of the latter.
Evidence- is the cause necessary to establish
proof.
I. Admissibility
A. Relevance –
The evidence has such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence.
Evidence on collateral matters shall not be
allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue. (Rule 128,
Secs. 3 and 4.)
- In conclusion, relevancy is not determined by
law nor the rules of court. It is determined
purely by LOGIC.
B. Competence –
The evidence is not excluded by the law or the
rules (Rule 128, Sec. 3.)
 Do not confuse COMPETENT WITNESS
from COMPETENT EVIDENCE. The
COMPETENCY TEST of evidence applies to
the TESTIMONY of the qualified witness.
Since admissibility of evidence is
determined by its relevance and competence,
admissibility is therefore an affair of logic and
law. On the other hand, the weight to be given
to such evidence depends on judicial evaluation
within the guidelines provided in Rule 133 and
the jurisprudence laid down by the court.
(People vs. Turco, 2000)
Relevant evidence is one that has any
value in reason as tending to prove any matter
probable in an action. Evidence is said to be
material when it is directed to prove a fact in
issue as determined by the rules of substantive
law and pleadings, while competent evidence is
one that is not excluded by law in a particular
case. (Bautista vs. Aparece, 1995)
Page 2 3/16/20182
Exclusionary Rules under the 1987
Constitution
1.1 Secs. 2 & 3, Art. III – The right of the
people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or
the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.
1.2 Sec. 12, Art III – Any person under
investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed
of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel. No torture, force,
violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means, which vitiate the free will, shall be
used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall
be inadmissible in evidence against him.
Sec. 17, Art III – No person shall be compelled
to be a witness against himself.
This right is recognized under he Rules
on Evidence, which provides that, it is the right
of a witness not to give an answer which will
tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense
unless otherwise provided by law. [Sec. 3 (4),
Rule 132, ROC)
NOTES AND COMMENTS: The human
body could be used as evidence without
violating the right. Mechanical acts without the
use of intelligence do not fall within the scope of
the protection. Some of the acts which are not
 hlp©2009 Page 3
covered by the right of self-incrimination are
the following:
a. Fingerprinting, photographing nd
paraffin testing, physical examination. (U.S. v.
Tang, 23 Phil. 145_)
b. Physical examination of a woman
accused of adultery to determine if she is
pregnant. (U.S. v. On Suy Hon, 36 Phil. 735;
Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62)
c. Undergoing ultra-violet rays
examination to determine presence of
flourescent powder on the hands. (People v.
Tranca, 35 SCRA 455)
d. Subpoena directing government
officials to produce official documents or public
records in their custody.
e. Fitting the accused foot over a foot
print, putting on a pair of trousers, etc.
2. Statutory Rules of Exclusion
2.1 Sec. 201, NIRC – An instrument, document
or paper which is required by law to be
stamped and which has been signed,
issued, accepted or transferred without
being duly stamped, shall not be recorded,
nor shall it or any copy thereof or any
record of transfer of the same be admitted
or used in evidence in any court until the
requisite stamp or stamps shall have been
affixed thereto and cancelled.
2.2 R.A. 4200 (Wire-tapping Act) –
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person,
not being authorized by all the parties to
any private communication or spoken word,
to tap any wire or cable, or by using any
other device or arrangement, to secretly
overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken work by using a
device commonly known as a Dictaphone or
dictograph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie
or tape recorder, or however otherwise
described. x x
Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken
word, or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, effect, or meaning of
the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained, obtained or
secured by any person in violation of the
preceding sections of this Act shall not be
admissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative
hearing or investigation.
An extension telephone cannot be
placed in the same category as a Dictaphone,
dictograph or the other devices enumerated in
Sec. 1 of RA 4200 as the use thereof cannot be
3/16/20183
considered as “tapping” the wire or cable of a
telephone line. (Gaanan vs. IAC, 1986)
RA 4200 expressly makes tape
recordings of tapped conversations inadmissible
in evidence absent a clear showing that both
parties to the phone conversations allowed the
recording. (Salcedo-OrtaÒez vs. CA, 1994)
EXCLUSIONARY RULES under the RULES
OF COURT
1. Best Evidence Rule
2. Parole Evidence
3. Hearsay Rule
Wigmore’s Axiom of Admissibility
“None but facts having rational probative value
are admissible”- ILLUSTRATION: In a trial for
homicide, the fact is offered that the accused
was requested, with others, to touch the corpse
of the murdered man to see if blood flowed, but
that he refused to do so; this is admissible,
not because the flowing or retention of the
blood at the guilty man’s touch would be
rationally evidential of his guilt, but because his
refusal to do could constitute a link to the chain
of evidence necessary to produce a moral
conviction of guilt.
“Any fact having rational probative value is
admissible, unless some specific rule forbids its
admission”- ILLUSTRATION: In an issue
involving forgery, the disposition of the
person’s character as to acts of honesty or
dishonesty is of some rational probative value
towards showing that he did or did not do the
act; it is therefore admissible, but this can only
be done if the accused steps forward first and
adduces evidence of his good moral character.
Irrelevant vs. Incompetent vs.
Inadmissible vs. Immaterial Evidence
Irrelevant- no probative value; No tendency in
reason to establish the probability or
improbability of a fact in issue. It does not
directly relate to a fact in issue.
N.B. All facts and circumstances which
afford reasonable inferences or throw light upon
the probability of matter or matters contested
are admissible in evidence, UNLESS excluded
by some established principle of evidence, such
as HEARSAY EVIDENCE RULE, RULE ON PAROLE
EVIDENCE and BEST EVIDENCE RULE.
Collateral Matters- matters other
than the facts in issue and which are offered as
a basis merely for inference as to the existence
 hlp©2009
or non-existence of the facts in issue. These are
not allowed unless satisfy ALL the requirements
of relevancy.
ILLUSTRATIONS:
a. finger marks, foot prints and a bat
left by the accused in the place of the crime
b. The resemblance of a child to his
alleged father to prove paternity of the latter
c. Bloodstains on the clothing of the
person charged with a crime
d. The destruction or fabrication of
evidence
e. Flight of the accused. (N.B. Non-
flight is not conclusive proof of innocence)
f. Delay in the identification of victim’s
assailant
Incompetent- excluded by the rules or any law
Inadmissible- not competent and irrelevant
Immaterial- the offered evidential fact is
directed to prove some probandum which is not
properly in issue. (N.B.- The rules on
substantive law and of pleading determine
immateriality)
Material evidence- proves a main fact
which is the subject of the inquiry or any
circumstance which tends to prove that fact or
any fact or circumstance which tends to
corroborate or strengthen the testimony
relative to the subject of inquiry or which
legitimately affects the credibility of any
witness who testifies.
Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence
Direct- Evidence that directly proves a fact
without need to make inference from another
fact
Example: The testimony of the
prosecution witness claiming that he saw that it
was actually the deceased who attacked the
accused without the latter’s provocation is a
direct evidence.
Circumstantial- Indirectly proves a fact in issue
through an inference which the fact finder
draws from the evidence established
Example: The testimony of the victim
that he dreads the mere presence of the
accused is direct evidence that the statement
was made.
It is likewise circumstantial
evidence to show that this fear prevented the
victim from attacking the accused without
provocation.
IN CRIMINAL CASES, circumstantial
evidence is sufficient for conviction when:
Page 4 3/16/20184
a. There is more than one
circumstance
b. The facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven
c. The combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt (Sec. 4 Rule 133)
Cumulative v. Corroborative
Cumulative- evidence of the same kind that
tends to prove the same fact
Ex. Two or more witnesses testify that
they saw the event which the first witness
claimed he saw, the subsequent testimonies are
cumulative
Corroborative- evidence which tends to confirm,
validate or strengthen evidence already
presented. Evidence may be of the same kind
or different kind and tends to prove the same
fact.
Ex. A witness claims that he saw Mr. X
sign the document subject of the action. Mr. X
denies the authenticity of his signature.
Evidence by a handwriting expert is
corroborative.
Positive v. Negative Evidence
Positive- A witness affirms in the stand that a
certain state of facts do exist or that a certain
event happened
Negative- A witness states that an event did not
occur or that the facts alleged to exist did not
actually exist. (Denial)
Derivative Evidence- type of evidence that is
inadmissible as proof because of the application
of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,
which treats the original evidence and any
evidence derived from it as tainted because of
the illegal way in which it was obtained by
agents of the government.
Rebuttal Evidence- offered to contradict other
evidence or to rebut a resumption of fact.
Admissibility v. Weight
- Evidence is ADMISSIBLE when it is
relevant and is not excluded by any
rule.
- Probative value or WEIGHT is to be
 hlp©2009
determined by the court when it decides
the case
MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
Evidence is admissible for two or more
purposes. The rule is when a fact satisfies all
rules applicable to it when offered for that
purpose, its failure to satisfy some other rule
which would be applicable to it if offered for
another purpose would not exclude it.
ILLUSTRATION: An extrajudicial confession may
be inadmissible as against a party who did not
subscribe to it, yet such party may use said
document as evidence of lack of guilt.
CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
GR: The time for determining the admissibility
of a particular fact is ordinarily the time when it
is offered to the court.
Exception: When some facts depend on some
other facts needed to be established first in
order that said former evidentiary facts would
be admissible.
ILLUSTRATION: Mr. P files an action for
recovery of ownership of a parcel of land
against Mr. D. The complaint alleges that Mr. P
is the owner of the property. During the trial,
Mr. P testifies and adduces evidence that a
certain O bought the property from D. The
testimony of O may be allowed if it would be
shown the chain of events that led to the
ownership of P of the land.
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
There is curative admissibility when a party
offers an inadmissible fact which is received
because there is no objection by the other
party. The other party does not acquire the
right to introduce in reply to the same kind of
evidence, EXCEPT whenever it is needed for
removing an unfair prejudice which might
otherwise have ensued from the original
evidence.
ILLUSTRATION: In an action for damages
arising from a car accident, the plaintiff
introduced evidence to show that on several
occasions the defendant in the past had injured
pedestrians because of his negligence. (This is
inadmissible under Sec. 34 Rule 130- Prior acts
as evidence). Under the concept of Curative
admissibility the court must give the party
against whom the evidence was admitted the
Page 5 3/16/20185
chance to contradict or explain the alleged past
acts he committed to counteract the prejudice
which the improperly admitted evidence may
have caused.
II. What Need Not be Proved
a. Facts which a court shall or may
take judicial notice. (Secs. 1 and 2, Rule 129,
ROC)
b. Judicial admissions. (Sec. 4, Rule
129, ROC)
c. Conclusive presumptions
d. Disputable presumptions not
disputed
Distinguish mandatory judicial notice from
discretionary judicial notice.
a. For mandatory judicial notice the court is
compelled to take judicial notice because of the
use of the word "shall" in Sec. 1, Rule 129, ROC
WHILE for discretionary judicial notice the court
is not compelled because of the use of the word
"may" in Sec. 2, Rule 129, ROC.
b. Mandatory judicial notice takes place at the
court's own initiative WHILE discretionary
judicial notice may take place at the court's
initiative, or on request of a party.
c. Discretionary judicial notice requires a
hearing and presentation of evidence WHILE
mandatory judicial notice does not require
hearing and presentation of evidence.
A. Judicial Notice – Rule 129, Secs 1-3;
Rule 10, Sec. 8
1. When Mandatory – [EPF-SLAP-OL-MG]
- Existence and territorial extent of states
- Their political history
- Forms of government
- Symbols of nationality
- Law of nations
- Admiralty and maritime courts of the world
and their seals
- Political constitution and history of the
Philippines
- Official acts of the legislative, executive, and
judicial
departments of
the Philippines
- Laws of nature
- Measure of time
- Geographical divisions
2. When Discretionary
- Matters of public knowledge
- Matters capable of unquestionable
demonstration
- Matters which ought to be known to judges
 hlp©2009 Page 6
because of their
judicial functions.
3. When Hearing is Necessary
- During the trial: the court, on its own
initiative, or on request of a party, may
announce its intention to take judicial notice of
ANY MATTER and allow the parties to be heard
thereon.
- After the trial, and before judgment or on
appeal: the proper court, on its own initiative or
on request of a party, may take judicial notice
of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
thereon if such MATTER IS DECISIVE OF A
MATERIAL ISSUE in the case.
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES
Courts are not mandated to take judicial notice
of municipal ordinances unless the charter of
the concerned city provides for such judicial
notice. (City of Manila vs. Garcia, 1967). But
INFERIOR COURTS sitting in the respective
municipalities or cities are MANDATED to take
judicial notice. The reason is that violations of
the ordinances are usually vested to the inferior
court EXCLUSIVELY in the exercise of their
original jurisdiction.
IF inferior court took judicial notice and there
was an appeal, such court taking the appeal
should likewise take judicial notice. (U.S. v.
Blanco, 37 Phil. 126)
COURT RECORDS:
-Courts may take judicial notice of its own
records of cases pending before it. (Ex.
Pleadings; period of perfecting appeals.)
-Records of preliminary investigation shall not
form part of the record, however the court on
its own initiative or that of any party may order
the production of the record or any part thereof
whenever the same shall be necessary in the
resolution of the case or any incident therein or
shall be introduced as evidence by the party
requesting for its production.
-Courts are not authorized to take judicial
notice of the contents of the record of other
cases pending or heard before them
notwithstanding they are pending before the
same judge.
Exceptions: 1. In the absence of objection from
the adverse party, with the knowledge of the
adverse party; or at the request or with the
consent of the parties, the case is clearly
referred to or the original or part of the records
3/16/20186
of the case are actually withdrawn from the
archives and admitted as part of the record of
the case then pending. (Tabuena vs. CA, 1991)
2. The other case is so closely
connected or interdependent
3. When interests of the public in
ascertaining the truth is of paramount
importance
4. In cases seeking to determine what
is reasonable exercise of discretion
5. The finality of judgment in a case
FOREIGN LAWS
In general, courts may not take judicial notice
of foreign laws, EXCEPT in a few instances
where, in the exercise of sound discretion, they
may take judicial notice of such foreign laws of
which they are evidently familiar. (Delgado v.
Republic, L-2546, January 28, 1950; Pardo v.
Republic, 85 Phil. 323)
When foreign laws may be the subject of
judicial notice.
a. When the local court is evidently familiar
with the foreign law.
b. When the foreign law refers to the law of
nations. (Sec. 1, Rule 129, ROC)
c. When the court takes judicial notice of a
published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
subject of law as a learned treartise. (Sec. 46,
Rule 130, Ibid.)
d. When the foreign statute is acepted by the
Philippine governemnt. (Republic v. Guanzon,
61 SCRA 360)
e. When a foreign judgmen containing foreign
law is recognized for enforcement. (Sec. 48,
Rule 39, ROC)
f. If the foreign law refers to common law
doctrines and rules from which many of our
laws were derived. (Alzua v. Johnson, 21 Phil.
308)
Doctrine of Processual
Presumption: Foreign law is the same as the
law of the forum. It arises if the foreign law,
though properly applicable is either not alleged
or if alleged is not duly proved before a
competent court.
B.Judicial Admissions – Rule 129, Sec. 4
-Definition: admissions, verbal or written, made
by the party in the course of the proceedings in
the same case
-Proof is not required.
-How contradicted: ONLY by showing
 hlp©2009
= That it was made through palpable mistake
or
= That no such admission was made
Having been amended, the original
complaint lost its character as a judicial
admission, which would have required no proof
and became merely any extrajudicial admission
requiring a formal offer in order to be
admissible. (Torres vs. CA, 1984)
FORMS OF ADMISSIONS:
1. Implied admissions of allegations of
usury and in actionable documents if
not specifically denied under oath (Sec.
11 & 8, Rule 8)
2. Admissions in pre-trial of civil cases and
criminal cases (In criminal cases the
admission must be reduced in writing
and signed by accused and counsel-
Sec. 4 Rule 118)
3. Implied admissions in the modes of
discovery (Depositions; Interrogatories-
Rule 23; Failure to specifically deny
under oath w/in 15 days a Request for
Admission in a pending case- Rule 26; )
4. Admissions in amended pleadings (Sec.
8 Rule 10) [N.B. Admissions in
superseded pleadings are extra-judicial
admissions which must be proven.
Dismissed pleadings are likewise
extrajudicial admissions]
5. Plea of guilt in criminal case (N.B. A
withdrawn plea of guilt is inadmissible,
unlike in civil cases where a withdrawn
judicial admission is considered an
extrajudicial admission)
6. Admissions by counsel are generally
conclusive upon a client absent any
gross negligence which deprives counsel
of due process of law or there is
outright deprivation of property or
liberty.
Note: Admissions in pleadings may not
always be considered as judicial
admissions because there are
hypothetical admissions in civil
cases. (i.e. Affirmative defenses in an
answer; Motion to dismiss, where
defendant admits allegations but sets
up grounds such as lack of jurisdiction
etc.)
Notes: 1. It is not essential that an admission
is contrary to the interest of party at the time it
is made. It is enough that it be INCONSISTENT
with the position a party takes in his pleadings
Page 7 3/16/20187
or at trial.
2. Averments in pleadings not deemed
admissions even if there is failure to make a
specific denial: a) Immaterial allegations; b)
Conclusions and non-unltimate facts; c) Amount
of unliquidated damages.
Adoptive Admissions
A party’s reaction to a statement or action by
another person when it is reasonable to treat
the party’s reaction as an admission of
something stated or implied by the other
person.
Adopted Confessions
A co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or
adopted the other’s confession by not
questioning its truthfulness, as where it was
made in his presence and he did not
demonstrate against his being implicated
therein
III. Rules of Admissibility
A. Object (Real) Evidence –Rule 130, Sec. 1.
- Evidence addressed to the senses of the
court.
- When an object is relevant to the fact in issue,
it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by
the court.
AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE (VIEW OF AN
OBJECT)
- Where the object in question cannot be
produced in court because it is immovable or
inconvenient to remove, the natural recourse is
for the court to order an ocular inspection and
go to the object in its place and observe it
there.
Is there an exclusionary rule when it
comes to object evidence?
There is none. However, the court is given
enough discretion to determine which object
evidence should be presented, upon
determination whether or not it will result to
scandal or it does not work any additional
benefit to the plaintiff or that it will give undue
prejudice to the defendant.
ILLUSTRATIONS:
Footprints
A bloody foot print was found upon a floor near
the dead body of a person. Upon being
arrested, the accused was taken to the house
 hlp©2009 Page 8
where the incident happen. Upon placing his
foot over the foot print it was found that his
foot corresponded exactly to said footprint.
HELD: Proof of this circumstance is admissible,
notwithstanding that no photograph of the
footprint was submitted in evidence and that
the board itself upon which the footprint was
made was not produced in court. (US v. Zara,
43 Phil. 308)
Resemblance, Race, Age or Parentage
-To determine whether a person is alien or not,
his personal appearance, ethnological and racial
characteristic, language, customs, dress and
manners may be taken into consideration.
-In determining the age of the accused who had
no positive information on the subject, the
court took into account his appearance and
judged that he was a youth of 18 or 19 years of
age.
-A physical comparison may be made between
a minor Chinese applying for admission into the
country with his alleged father.
Photographs
- Where deposition of subscribing witnesses to
a will are taken, a photographic copy of the will
may be presented to the witnesses on their
examination and they may be asked the same
question with respect to said copy as if it were
the original will and testimony as to the identity
of the photographic copy shown to the
witnesses is admissible in evidence.
-Photographs may be admissible upon proof of
their exactness and accuracy by the
photographer himself who can testify of his
personal knowledge of the correctness of the
representation. (Tan It v. Sun Insurance Office,
51 Phil. 212)
NOTES:
The photographer is not the only
witness who can identify the pictures. The
faithful representation of the photograph may
be proved prima facie by the testimony of those
who were present at the time it was taken, or
by any other competent witness who can testify
as to its exactness and accuracy. Once proved,
the court may admit it subject to impeachment
as to its accuracy.
The value of a photograph lies in its
being a correct representation or reproduction
of the original, and its admissibility is
determined by its accuracy in portraying the
3/16/20188
scene at the time the picture was taken. (Sison
v. People, 250 SCRA 58, 75-76)
Photocopies or xerox copies of signed
documents are not duplicate originals because
they are not signed. (Mahilum v. Court of
Appeals, 17 SCRA 482)
Computer printouts.
If the data are stored in a computer or
similar device, any printout or other output
readable by sight, shown to reflect the data
accurately, is an original. (Evidence Code of
California, Added by Stats. 1977, Sec. 1)
In a labor case, IBM Philippines, Inc., et
al., v. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 117221, prom.
April 13, 1999, the Supreme Court held that
computer printouts which were not signed
because they are unsigned. The Court went on
further to say that its decisions, while adhering
to a liberal view in the conduct of proceedings
before administrative agencies, have
nonetheless consistently required some proof of
authenticity or reliability as condition for the
admission of documents.
Not one of the 18 print-out copies
submitted by IBM was ever signed, either by
the sender or the receiver. There is thus no
guarantee that the message sent was the same
message received. Neither were the print-outs
certified or authenticated by any company
official who could properly attest that these
came from IBM’s computer system or that the
data stored in the system were not and/or could
not haved been tampered with before the same
were printed out.
Ballots
- Every ballot needs to be presented in a case
of election protest. Every ballot constitutes the
will of every voter.
DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
- one which or represents demonstrates the real
thing. (ex. Map, diagram, photograph, or a
model)
Photographs: Must faithfully represent what it
depicts (Same rules apply to motion pictures
and recordings)
X-Rays: Must show location and extent of injury
Scientific tests, demonstrations by physical act
and experiments: This is a matter of judicial
discretion.
B. Documentary Evidence – Rule 130,
 hlp©2009 Page 9
Sec. 2.
- Writings or any material containing letters,
words, numbers, figures, symbols or other
modes of written expression offered as proof of
their contents.
1. Best Evidence Rule –
Rule 130, Secs. 3-4
General Rule: When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document
itself.
Exceptions:
1. When the original has been lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,
without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
2. When the original is in the custody or under
the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice;
3. When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot
be examined in court without great loss of
time and the fact sought to be established
from them is only the general result of the
whole; and
4. When the original is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in
a public office.
Original of a Document
1 The original of the document is one the
contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
2 When a document is in two or more copies
executed at or about the same time, with
identical contents, all such copies are
equally regarded as originals.
3 When an entry is repeated in the regular
course of business, one being copied from
another at or near the time of the
transaction, all the entries are likewise
equally regarded as originals.
Rules on Electronic Evidence (Rule 4) –
Sec. 1. Original of an Electronic Document
– An electronic document shall be regarded
as the equivalent of an original document
under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a
printout or output readable by sight or
other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately.
Sec. 2. Copies as equivalent of the
originals – When a document is in two or
more copies executed at or about the same
time with identical contents, or is a
counterpart produced by the same
3/16/20189
impression as the original, or from the
same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic
re-recording, or by chemical reproduction,
or by other equivalent techniques which
accurately reproduces the original.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or
duplicates shall not be admissible to the
same extent as the original if: a genuine
question is raised as to the authenticity of
the original; or in the circumstances it
would be unjust or inequitable to admit the
copy in lieu of the original.
Carbon copies are deemed duplicate
originals. They may be introduced as evidence
without accounting for the non-production of
the original. (People vs. Tan, 1959)
The Best Evidence Rule applies only
when the contents of the document are the
subject of inquiry. It does not apply when the
issue is only as to whether or not such
document was actually executed or in the
circumstances relevant to its execution. (People
vs. Tandoy, 1990)
SOME EXAMPLES:
1. Baptismal and Marriage Certificate
- They are only evidence to prove the
administration of the sacraments on the
dates therein specified
- Baptismal certificate is not conclusive
proof of filiation being hearsay
2. Medical Certificate
- To prove torture inflicted by the police,
the medical certificate alone without the
testimony of the examining physician is
inadmissible (People v. Villagracia, 226
SCRA 398)
3. Residence Certificate
- The place of obtaining a residence
certificate and the date contained are
not conclusive as to the real residence
or domicile of a person owning said
certificate. (Zuellig v. Republic, 83 Phil.
768)
4. Tax declaration
- It can be used as evidence that a
portion of land had been sold. (Gacos v.
CA, 212 SCRA 8)
5. Accounts and Account Books
- Where the custom broker’s authorized
representative accepted the cargo “OK
 hlp©2009 Page 10
and complete” as shown in the
surveyor’s report countersigned by him
and it was obviously his assigned task
to note defects in the cargo, said
acceptance—if not being outright upon
the custom’s broker—is at least
evidence of the condition of the goods
when thus received. (Insurance
Company of North America vs. C.F.
Sharp & Co., Inc. 18 SCRA 462)
- An audit made by or the testimony of a
private auditor is inadmissible in
evidence as proof of the original
records, books of accounts, reports or
the like. (Compania Maritima vs. Allied
Free Workers Union, 77 SCRA 24)
After complying with the BEST EVIDENCE
RULE will the court necessarily admit the
original writing?
No. 1) The requirements of authentication of
documents must be met. There must be proof
of authentication. However this applies only
when the writing is a private document. 2)
After authentication, the proponent has to
comply with the rule that if the original writing
is not in an official language (English or
Filipino), it is his duty to give to the court a
translation thereof. 3) If there is an alteration,
he must explain such alteration. He may show
that the alteration was made:
a) by another,
b) without his concurrence, or
c) made with the consent of the parties
affected by it, or
d) was otherwise properly or innocent made,
or
e) The alteration did not change the meaning
or language of the instrument.
PRIVATE DOCUMENTS. How Proven = Rule
132, Sec. 20
Before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved
either: (1) by anyone who say the document
executed or written; or (2) by evidence of the
genuineness of the signature or handwriting of
the maker. Any other private document need
only be identified as that which it is claimed to
be.
- Ancient Document Rule = Rule 132, Sec. 21
(Not Required to Authenticate)
Requisites: (1) The private document is more
3/16/201810
than 30 years old; (2) It is produced from a
custody in which it would naturally be found if
genuine; (3) It is unblemished by any
alterations or circumstances of suspicion.
If all requisites have been met, no other
evidence of its authenticity is required.
- How Genuineness of Handwriting is
Proven = Rule 132, Sec. 22
It may be proved by any witness who believes
it to be the handwriting of such person because
he has seen the person write, or has seen
writing purporting to be his upon which the
witness has acted or been charged, and has
thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of
such person.
Evidence respecting the handwriting may also
be given by a comparison made by the witness
or the court, with writings admitted or treated
as genuine by the party against whom the
evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to
the satisfaction of the judge.
Not much weight is given to handwriting
experts. Unless, therefore, there is, in a given
case, absolute absence, or manifest dearth, or
direct or circumstantial competent evidence of
the character of a questioned handwriting,
much weight should not be given to
characteristic similarities, or dissimilarities,
between the questioned handwriting and an
authentic one. (Punzalan v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 132435 prom. April 27,
1998 citing Lorenzo v. Diaz, 53 O.G. 4110-
4111, cited in Francisco on Evidence, Vol. VII,
Part I, 1997 Edition, p. 674)
Questions involving the mere similarity
or dissimilarity of handwritings could be
determined by the court itself as authorized
under Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
by making a comparison of the disputed
handwriting "with writings admitted or treated
as genuine by the party against whom the
evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to
the satisfaction of the judge." (Punzalan v.
Commission on Elections, supra)
2. Secondary Evidence –
Rule 130, Secs. 5-8
2.1 Instances when secondary evidence may be
introduced:
2.1.1 when original document is unavailable
(lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in court)
-
- The offeror, upon proof of (1) its execution or
 hlp©2009 Page 11
existence and (2) cause of its unavailability,
without bad faith on his part may prove its
contents by:
= A copy
= A recital of its contents in some authentic
document
= The testimony of witnesses.
The order stated must be followed.
2.1.2 When original document is in adverse
party’s custody or
control.
- If after reasonable notice is given to the
adverse party to produce the document and
after satisfactory proof of the existence of the
document is made, he fails to produce the
document, secondary evidence may be
presented.
2.1.3 when original document is a public record.
- Its contents may be proved by a certified copy
issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
2.2 A party who calls for the production of a
document and inspects it is not obliged to offer
it as evidence.
The voluminous character of the
document must be established before evidence
other than the original may be introduced.
(Compania Maritima vs. Allied Free Workers,
1977)
In the case where the original is in the
custody of the adverse party, it is not
necessary that it be in the actual possession of
the adverse party. It is enough that the
circumstances show that the writing is in his
possession or under his control. Secondary
evidence is admissible where the adverse party
denies having it in his possession. (Villa Rey
Transit vs. Ferrer, 1968)
All duplicates or counterparts must be
accounted for before using copies as evidence.
(De Vera vs. Aguilar, 1983)
3. Parol Evidence Rule – Rule 130, Sec. 9
Nature of parol evidence rule: It is not a
rule of evidence but of
substantive law.
It is part of the law of contracts, the law of
negotiable instruments, and the law of wills. It
is
founded upon the substantive rights of the
parties. It was made part of
the rules of evidence in
order
that it may be considered in all its phases in
one place.
Reasons for the parol evidence rule:
1) When the parties have reduced their
3/16/201811
agreement in writing,
2) it is presumed that they have made the
writing
3) the only repository and memorial of the
truth, and
4) whatever is not found in the writing
must be understood to have
been waived or abandoned.
General Rule: When the terms of an
AGREEMENT (including WILLS) have been
reduced to WRITING, it is considered as
containing ALL the terms agreed upon and
there can be, between the parties and their
successors in interest, NO evidence (testimonial
or documentary) of such terms other than the
contents of the written agreement.
Exceptions: A party may present evidence to –
a. Modify,
b. Explain or
c. Add to
the terms of written agreement if he puts
in issue in his pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement
to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written
agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed
to by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the
written agreement.
ILLUSTRATION: The vendee can validly
tell the court that the deed of sale is not
really one of sale but one or mortgage
as long as he puts in issue in the
pleadings, any of the matters
enumerated above. [N.B. Art. 1602,
NCC presumes that a deed of sale is an
equitable mortgage when: 1] price of
sale with right to purchase is unusually
inadequate; 2) Vendor remains in
possession as lessee or otherwise; 3)
When another instrument extending
period of redemption is executed; 4)
When purchaser retains for himself a
part of purchase price; 5) Vendor
assumes tax; 6) Other circumstances]
ILLUSTRATION: There is a sale of a
piece of land in favor of Juan dela Cruz.
If you read the document there is really
nothing wrong because there is a
hlp©2009 Page 12
vendor, there is a vendee and there is
an object and consideration. But it turns
out that there are two persons who
carry the name Juan de la Cruz. That
document is intrinsically ambiguous
because we do not know who the
vendee in that sale. The defect can be
remedied by the introduction of
testimonial evidence or other
documentary evidence to show to the
court who is the Juan dela Cruz
mentioned in the deed of sale as the
vendee.
But if in that deed of sale where
Juan dela Cruz is the vendee, and there
is only one Juan dela Cruz, but the
property sold is simply a piece of land.
There is an ambiguity what particular
land is sold as there is no description.
The ambiguity is extrinsic. It arises
from the face of the document itself.
Here we cannot introduce evidence
aliunde. The contract is void, which
under the Rules cannot allow be
corrected and converted into a valid
contract.
 US cases and some
Philippine cases recognized
intermediate ambiguity,
and evidence aliunde may
be admitted by the court to
explain or add to its
meaning. This arises by the
use of equivocal word/s
which is susceptible of more
than one interpretation.
Example: Defendant sold to
plaintiff a distilling
apparatus of guaranteed
capacity of 6,000 liters
daily. Defendant claimed
that the phrase referred to
“receiving” capacity. Here
the word “capacity” was
susceptible of two
interpretations. SC held
that parol evidence is
admissible to show which of
the two interpretations
meant by the parties.
(Palanca v. Fred Wilson &
Co., 37 Phil. 506)
3/16/201812
What is the coverage of the parol evidence
rule and what are the exceptions to the
parol evidence rule ?
a. Covered. Only prior and
contemporaneous agreements which are
deemed to have been merged in the writing
conformably to the "integration of the
agreement rule." (Woodhouse v. Halili, 93 Phil.
526)
b. Not covered.
1) Subsequent agreements,
notwithstanding that such agreements
may have the effect of adding to,
changing, modifying, or even altogether
abrogating the contract of the parties as
evidenced by the writing.
2) Collateral agreements which
although oral and contemporaneous
with the writing are separate and
distinct agreements. (PNB v. Seeto, 91
Phil. 756)
3) It also does not apply if the
issue revolves around fraud and false
representation since they are incidental
to the execution and not to the
integration. (Woodhouse vs. Halili,
1953)
4) It does not apply either when
third parties are involved. (Lechugas
vs. CA, 1986)
NOTES:
a. Contemporaneous agreement. A
contemporaneous agreement is one entered
into at the same time as the agreement which
has been reduced to writing.
b. Tests to determine whether a
contemporaneous oral agreement is
separate and distinct from the written
agreement and therefore provable by parol
evidence:
1) The first test is the subject-matter
of the two agreements. If the subject-
matter of the written agreement is
different from that of the
contemporaneous oral agreement, then
the latter is a separate and distinct
agreement and, therefore, provable by
parol evidence.
2) If the two agreements refer to the
same subject-matter, the test is to
determine whether or not the
contemporaneous oral agreement is
 hlp©2009 Page 13
separable, then the contemporaneous
oral agreement is separate and distinct
and, therefore, probable by parol
evidence. (Lese v. Lamprecht, 196 N.Y.
32)
c. Example of agreement which CANNOT
be proven by parol evidence : Express trusts
concerning real property cannot be proven by
parol evidence because title and possession
cannot be defeated by oral evidence which can
easily be fabricated and contradicted. (Sinaon,
et al., v. Sorongon, et al., 136 SCRA 410)
d. Examples of collateral agreements
which CAN be proved by parol evidence:
1) An agreement of reconveyance is a
distinct agreement, separate from the
sale itself, although the two agreements
are usually contained in one and the
same document. (Laureano v. Kilayco,
34 Phil. 148; Yacapin v. Neri, 40 Phil.
61)
2) Inducements and representations
which led to the execution of an
agreement may be proven by parol
evidence because they do not vary the
terms of the agreement. (Woodhouse
v. Halili, 93 Phil. 526; Bough v.
Cantiveros, 40 Phil. 209)
3) Parol evidence is admissible to
prove an independent and collateral
agreement which constitutes an
inducement to the making of the sale or
part of the consideration thereof.
(Robles v. Lizarraga Hnos., 50 Phil.
387)
4) A condition precedent not stipulated
in writing is provable by oral evidence.
REASON: Before the happening of the
condition, there is no written agreement
yet to which the parol evidence may
apply.
5) Verbal assurances given by the
indorser of an out-of-town check to the
employees of the bank where it was
presented for encashment that he
would refund the amount if the check
should be dishonored by the drawee
bank is a collateral agreement separate
and distinct from the indorsement, by
virtue of which the first bank was
induced to cash the same, and
therefore, provable by parol evidence.
(PNB v. Seeto, 91 Phil. 756)
3/16/201813
6) Any prior or contemporaneous
conversaion in connection with a note
or its indorsement may be proved by
parol evidence. (PNB v. Seeto, 91 Phil.
756; Philips v. Preston, 5 How. [U.S.]
278)
7) An extrinsic agreement between
indorser and indorsee which cannot be
embodied in the instrument without
impairing its credit may be proved by
parol evidence. (PNB v. Seeto, 91 Phil.
756; 9 Wigmore 148)
8.) The fact that parties who appear to
have signed as principals did so as
merely sureties is provable by parol
evidence. (Tan Machan v. De la
Trinidad, 3 Phil. 684)
FALSA DEMONSTRATION NON
NOCET
- “False description will not invalidate an
instrument”
- The erroneous description will be
considered as a surplusage.
ILLUSTRATION: In a deed of sale of a
parcel of land covered by: TCT 12345,
located in City of Muntinlupa. There is
really a land covered by TCT 12345 with
same technical description however it is
not located in Muntinlupa, but in
Laguna. The erroneous description will
not invalidate the contract.
Best evidence rule distinguished from
parol evidence rule:
1) Under the best evidence rule, the issue is
contents of a writing (Sec. 3, Rule 130, ROC)
WHILE under the parol evidence rule, there is
no issue as to contents of a writing (Sec. 9,
Rule 130, ROC);
2) Under the best evidence rule, secondary
evidence is offered to prove the contents of a
writing, which is not allowed unless the case
falls under any of the exceptions (Sec. 3, Rule
130, ROC) WHILE under the parol evidence
rule, the purpose of the offer of parol evidence
is to change, vary, modify, qualify, or contradict
the terms of a complete written agreement,
which is not allowed unless the case falls under
any of the exceptions. (Sec. 9, Rule 130, ROC)
 hlp©2009 Page 14
Only the parties and their successors in
interest, and not strangers may invoke the
protection of the parol evidence rule. (Sec. 9,
Rule 130, ROC)
PAROLE EVIDENCE DISTINGUISHED FROM
STATUTE OF FRAUDS
The Statute of Frauds requires that certain
agreements be proved by writing or by some
note or memorandum thereof in order to be
enforceable. On the other hand, the Parole
Evidence Rule has nothing to do with the
manner of proving agreements. Its object is to
prohibit alteration, change, modification,
variation or contradiction of the terms of a
written agreement by “parol evidence”.
4. Interpretation of Documents – Rule 130,
Secs. 10-19
SEC. 10. Interpretation of a writing according
to its legal meaning. —The language of a
writing is to be interpreted according to the
legal meaning it bears in the place of its
execution, unless the parties intended
otherwise.
SEC. 11. Instrument construed so as to give
effect to all provisions. —In the construction of
an instrument where there are several
provisions or particulars, such a construction is,
if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to
all.
SEC. 12. Interpretation according to intention;
general and particular provisions. —In the
construction of an instrument, the intention of
the parties is to be pursued; and when a
general and a particular provision are
inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the
former. So a particular intent will control a
general one that is inconsistent with it.
SEC. 13. Interpretation according to
circumstances. —For the proper construction of
an instrument, the circumstances under which it
was made, including the situation of the subject
thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown,
so that the judge may be placed in the position
of those whose language he is to interpret.
SEC. 14. Peculiar signification of terms. —The
terms of a writing are presumed to have been
used in their primary and general acceptation,
but evidence is admissible to show that they
have a local, technical, or otherwise peculiar
signification, and were so used and understood,
in the particular instance, in which case the
agreement must be construed accordingly.
SEC. 15. Written words control printed. —When
3/16/201814
an instrument consists partly of written words
and partly of a printed form, and the two are
inconsistent, the former controls the latter.
SEC. 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in
explaining certain writings. —When the
characters in which an instrument is written are
difficult to be deciphered, or the language is not
understood by the court, the evidence of
persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or
who understand the language, is admissible to
declare the characters or the meaning of the
language.
SEC. 17. Of two constructions, which preferred.
—When the terms of an agreement have been
intended in a different sense by the different
parties to it, that sense is to prevail against
either party in which he supposed the other
understood it, and when different constructions
of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that
is to be taken which is the most favorable to
the party in whose favor the provision is made.
SEC. 18. Construction in favor of natural right.
—When an instrument is equally susceptible of
two interpretations, one in favor of natural right
and the other against it, the former is to be
adopted.
SEC. 19. Interpretation according to usage. —
An instrument may be construed according to
usage, in order to determine its true character.
C. Testimonial Evidence
Qualifications of Witnesses – Rule 130,
Sec. 20
- Can perceive, and perceiving, can make their
known perception to others.
GR: A disinterested person could be compelled
to give his testimony through subpoena
Exceptions: Persons who are immune from the
process of subpoena by tradition, convention or
law:
a. Ambassadors of foreign
countries by virtue of treaty
obligations
b. President of the Philippines or
other country
Disqualifications –
a. Mental incapacity or immaturity (Sec. 21,
Rule 130, ROC);
b. Marriage (Sec. 22, Ibid);
c. Death or insanity of adverse party (Sec. 23,
Ibid.)
d. Privileged communication (Sec. 24, Ibid.)
[Applies to Rules on
 hlp©2009 Page 15
Electronic Evidence]
1) Marital privileged communication rule
(Sec. 24 [a], Ibid.);
2) Lawyer-client privileged communication
rule (Sec. 24 [b], Ibid.);
3) Doctor-patient privileged communication
rule (Sec. 24 [c], Ibid.)-
(N/A in criminal cases)
4) Priest-penitent privileged communication
rule (Sec. 24 [d], Ibid.);
and
5) Public officer privileged communication
rule (Sec. 24 [e], Ibid.).
e. Parental and filial testimonial privilege rule
(Sec. 25, Rule 130, ROC)
Note: Conviction of a crime does not
disqualify a person from testifying but may
disqualify him from being discharged as a
state witness. (Sec. 9 [e], Rule 119, ROC)
Note: This is not an exclusive
enumeration of the Rules on privilege
communication. Other examples are:
a. Under Rules on Alternative dispute
Resolution, information or communication
given by parties who participate in ADR is
confidential
b. Information derived by editors,
reporters and publishers
c. The negotiations under the Witness
Protection Program (Accused discharged as
state witness)
A. By reason of mental incapacity or
immaturity – Rule 30, Sec. 21
- Those whose mental condition, at the time of
their production for examination, is such that
they are incapable of intelligently making
known their perception to others;
- Children whose mental maturity is such as to
render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of
relating them truthfully.
A mental retardate is not for this reason
alone disqualified from being a witness. (People
vs. Salomon, 1993)
Requisites of competency of a child as
witness: capacity of observation; capacity of
recollection; and capacity of communication.
(People vs. Mendoza, 1996)
B. Marital Disqualification – Rule 130, Sec. 22
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:
3/16/201815
- 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 right to invoke this disqualification belongs
to the spouse-party (Ortiz v. Arambulo, 8 Phil.
98) against or for whom the testimony is being
proferred. It may be waived
1) By a failure to interpose timely objection, or
2) By calling the other spouse as witness
(Ibid., People v. Francisco, 78 Phil. 694)
The privilege could be invoked even if the
spouse is testifying in favor of the spouse-party
because damaging testimony may be elicited
during the cross-examination.
DIFFERENCE B/W PRIVILEGE AND
MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION
a. Privilege is applicable regardless of whether
the spouses are parties or not
- Marital disqualification is applicable only when
one or both spouses are parties
b. The privilege applies to testimonies on
confidential communication only
-Marital disqualification applies to testimony on
any fact
c. Marital disqualification ceases after
dissolution of marriage
-Privileged communication lasts even after the
death of either spouse
d. Even if the communication is not confidential,
the marital disqualification may still be invoked
e. Marital disqualification is more concerned
with the consequences. If the rule is not there,
perjury and domestic disunity may result.
- Privilege protects the hallowed confidences
inherent in marriage b/w husband and wife and
therefore guarantees the preservation of the
marriage and further the relationship between
the spouses as it encourages the disclosure of
confidential matters without fear of revelation.
‘Marrying the Witness’
An accused can effectively “seal the lips” of a
witness by marrying the witness. As long as a
valid marriage is in existence at the time of the
trial, the witness-spouse cannot be compelled
 hlp©2009 Page 16
to testify—even where the crime charged is
against the witness’ person, and even though
the marriage was entered into for the express
purpose of suppressing the testimony.
(Marriage for convenience)
CASE: A filed a complaint against husband
and wife for annulment of a contract by reason
of fraud. (H&W both defendants). A subpoenaed
the wife to be his hostile witness which is
allowed in civil cases. When the wife received
the subpoena, the husband filed a motion in
court for the quashing of the subpoeana, on the
ground that there is a violation of the rule on
marital disqualification/spousal immunity. A told
the court that this is not a case where the wife
will be giving testimony as an adverse witness
in favor of the plaintiff. So the rule on spousal
immunity does not apply. Ruling of the Court:
Spousal immunity applies. If the wife was
allowed to testify as an adverse witness for the
plaintiff, she might give testimony that he will
harm her interest and that of her husband. So
that there will be a violation of the spousal
immunity.
A conceded. A told the court now that if he
cannot compel the wife to be an adverse
witness, then he should be allowed to get the
deposition of the wife, because under the Rules
of Court when the deposition of a person is
taken, it does not necessarily mean that the
deponent will be used as a witness in court,
since it is only a mode of discovery. Ruling of
the Court: Even if the purpose is just to get
the deposition of the wife the rule on spousal
immunity applies.
CASE: A son filed a complaint against his own
father for recovery of property or some assets.
The son asked her mother to testify in his favor.
SC held that there will be a violation of the
spousal immunity rule.
Note: As long as there is a case INVOLVING
the husband OR wife, the disqualification is
absolute.
C. Dead Man’s Statute – Rule 130, Sec. 23
- Sometime called the “Survivor’s
disqualification rule”
Parties or assignor of parties to a case, or
persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted,
against
- An executor or
- Administrator or
- Other representative
3/16/201816
of a deceased person, or against a person of
unsound mind,
upon a claim or demand against the estate of
such deceased person or against such person of
unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter
of fact occurring BEFORE the death of such
deceased person or before such person became
of unsound mind.
Exceptions to the survivor’s
disqualification rule:
1) Ordinary witnesses, who are not the
plaintiff, assignor of plaintiff, or person in
whose behalf the case is prosecuted may
testify. (Francia v. Hipolito, 93 Phil. 968)
2) When the plaintiff is a corporation, the
officers or stockholders thereof are not
disqualified. (Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf, et c., 84
Phil. 330)
3) When there is an imputation of fraud
against the deceased, the plaintiff is not barred
from testifying to such fraud. (Go Chi Gun v.
Co Cho, 96 Phil. 622)
4) When the plaintiff is the executor,
administrator or legal representative of the
deceased, or the person of unsound mind, the
defendant or defendants are free to testify
against the plaintiff. (Tongco v. Vianzon, 50
Phil. 698)
5) When the defendant or defendants, though
heirs of the deceased, are sued in their personal
and individual capacities, the plaintiff may
testify against them. (Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho,
96 Phil. 622)
6) When the survivor's testimony refers to a
negative fact. (Mendezona v. vda. de Goitia, 54
Phil. 557)
7) When the survivor's testimony is favorable
to the deceased. (Icard v. Marasigan, 71 Phil.
419)
8) The adverse party is competent to testify to
transactions or communications with the
deceased or incompetent person which were
made with an agent of such person in cases in
which the agent is still alive and competent to
testify. But the testimony of the adverse party
must be confined o those transactions or
communications which were had with the agent.
(Goni, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al., 144
SCRA 231)
How protection of the dead man’s statute
is waived:
1) By not objecting to plaintiff's testimony on
prohibited matters. (Marella v.
Reyes, 12 Phil. 1)
 hlp©2009
2) By cross-examining the plaintiff on
prohibited matters. (Tongco v.
Vianzon, 50 Phil. 698)
3) By calling witnesses to testify on prohibited
matters. (Arroyo v. Azur, 76
Phil. 493)
4) When the plaintiff's deposition is taken by
the representative of the estate or when
counsel for the representative cross-examined
the plaintiff as to matters occurring during the
deceased's lifetime. (Goni, et al., v. Court of
Appeals, et al., 144 SCRA 231)
CASE: Mr. D approaches Mr. C to borrow
P100,000 to be paid next year. Mr. C gives Mr.
D the amount. Mr. C did not require Mr. D to
execute a promissory note. A day before the
agreed date of payment, Mr. D died. Mr. C went
to the executor of the estate of Mr. D and
claims the payment of the debt.
In this case, Mr. C is incompetent to testify
as to the transaction he had with Mr. D.
D. Privileged Communication
1. Marital Privilege – Rule 130, Sec. 24 (a)
Husband or the wife, during or after the
marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication
received in confidence by one from the other
during the marriage
- EXCEPT:
= In a civil case by one against the other, or
= In a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants;
CASE: If the communication is made in front of
the children of the husband and wife. Can the
privilege be invoked? YES, if the children are
still minors.
Note: The assumption is any communication
given by one spouse to the other is presumably
confidential because there is no standard given
in the Rules.
Applications of the marital privileged
communciation rule:
1) Every communication between spouses is
presumed to be confidential. (Sexton v.
Sexton, 129 Ia. 487; Wigmore, Sec. 2336)
2) Communications made in the presence of
third parties are not confidential, unless the
third person may be considered as an agent of
the spouses. (Floyd v. Miller, 61 Ind. 224)
3) Communications overheard by third persons
Page 17 3/16/201817
remain confidential as between the spouses,
but the third person who overheard may be
called upon to testify. (People v. Carlos, 47
Phil. 626)
4) Communications coming into the hands of
third persons, whether legally or illegally,
remain confidential as between the spouses,
but the third person may be called upon to
testify. (People, and Hammons, supra)
But if the third person acquired knowledge of
the communication by collusion and voluntary
disclosure on the part of either of the spouses,
he thereby becomes an agent of such spouses
so that the privilege is claimable against him.
(Ibid.)
5) Communications intended for transmission
to third persons are not confidential. (U.S. v.
Antipolo, 37 Phil. 726)
Waiver of the marital privileged
communication rule: The privilege is
claimable by the spouse not called as witness,
so that it its waivable only by him or her; and it
is waivable by any act of such spouse which
might be considered as an express or implied
consent to the disclosure of the communication.
(People v. Hayes, 140 N.Y. 484)
2. Attorney-Client Privilege – Rule 30, Sec. 24
(b)
An attorney cannot, without the consent of his
client, be examined as to
- Any communication made by the client to him,
or
- His advice given thereon in the course of, or
with a view to, professional employment,
nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer,
or clerk be examined, without the consent of
the client and his employer, concerning any fact
the knowledge of which has been acquired in
such capacity;
- Privilege is owned by the client. It is he who
can invoke the privilege. If the client waives the
privilege, no one else including the attorney can
invoke it. Hence it the client is asked on cross-
examination of his communications to his
lawyer and reveals the same there would be a
waiver. There is also a waiver if the client does
not object to the attorney’s testimony.
The attorney-client privilege may not be
invoked to refuse to divulge the identity of the
client, EXCEPT: (1) When a strong probability
exists that revealing the name would implicate
that person in the very same activity for which
 hlp©2009
he sought the lawyer’s advice; (2) When
disclosure would open the client to liability; (3)
When the name would furnish the only link that
would form the chain of testimony necessary to
convict. (Regala vs. Sandiganbayan, 1996)
LAST LINK DOCTRINE: Non-privileged
information, such as identity of the client is
protected if the revelation of such information
would necessarily reveal the privileged
information.
- It is enough that the client reasonably
believed that the person consulted is a
lawyer.
- Communications may refer to
anticipated litigations or may not refer
to any litigation at all.
- Privilege does not extend to
communications where the client’s
purpose is the furtherance of a future
intended crime or fraud
3. Physician-Patient Privilege – Rule 30, Sec. 24
(c)
A person authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics cannot in a CIVIL CASE,
without the consent of the patient, be examined
as to
- Any advice or treatment given by him or
- Any information which he may have acquired
in attending such patient in a professional
capacity, which information was necessary to
enable him to act in capacity, and which would
blacken the reputation of the patient;
- This privilege belongs to the patient, so that it
is only he that can claim or waive it. It is
waivable expressly or impliedly. It is impliedly
waived like any other privilege rule. (Penn.
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind. 92)
- The waiver may be by a contract as in medical
or life insurance
- When the patient answers questions on cross
examination, there is waiver
- Under Rule 28 ROC, the court may order a
party to submit to a physical or mental
examination, so long as the mental or physical
condition is in dispute. The party examined may
request a report of the examination. By doing
so, he waives any privilege he may have in that
action regarding the testimony of every other
person who has examined him in respect of the
same examination.
This privilege does not apply when the
doctor is presented as an expert witness and
only hypothetical problems were presented to
Page 18 3/16/201818
him. (Lim vs. CA, 1992)
4. Priest- Penitent Privilege – Rule 30, Sec. 24
(d)
A minister or priest cannot, without the consent
of the person making the confession, be
examined as to
- Any confession made to or
- Any advice given by him in his professional
character in the course of discipline enjoined by
the church to which the minister or priest
belongs
5. Public Officer Privilege – Rule 30, Sec. 24 (e)
A public officer cannot be examined during his
term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the public
interest would suffer by the disclosure.
6. Parental and Filial Privilege – Rule 130, Sec.
25
A person cannot be compelled to testify against
his parents, other direct ascendants, children or
other direct descendants.
N.B. There is an inconsistency between the ROC
and Family Code with respect to this privilege.
ROC prevails since it took effect in 1989 and is
made by the SC. While the Family Code took
effect in 1989, and though substantive is
procedural in character.
Who are not covered and may be
compelled to testify:
1) Relatives by affinity.
2) Brothers and sisters.
3) Aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces.
4) Cousins of whatever degree.
5) Other collateral relatives.
Note: Parental and filial testimony dies
not prohibit voluntary testimony or compelled
testimony against relatives by affinity or
collateral relatives.
Note: It is believed that adopted and
adopter are covered by the parental and filial
testimonial privilege rule but only insofar as the
parent and child is concerned. It does not
extend to the direct ascendants of the adopter
because the adoptive relation is between the
adopter and the adopted only. The reason for
this opinion is the rationale behind the
privilege, which is to preserve harmonious
relations between parent and child which could
be ruptured through testifying in court.
 hlp©2009 Page 19
Furthermore, perjury may result because the
parent or the child may give false testimony to
protect the other.
Admissions and Confessions
Admissions – Rule 130, Sec. 26
- Any act, declaration or omission of a party as
to a relevant fact may be given in evidence
against him.
Such admission may be received in
evidence not only against the party who made
it or his successors-in-interest but also against
third persons. (Viacrucis vs. CA, 1986)
The silence of an accused under custody
or his failure to deny statements by another
implicating him in a crime cannot be considered
as a tacit confession of his participation in the
commission of the crime. (People vs. Alegre,
1979)
Self-serving evidence
An admission favorable to the party making it.
(Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 84 Phil.
342)
a. Self-serving or favorable admissions
made out of court not admissible:
REASONS:
1) A man may be safely believed if he
declares against his own interest, but
not if he advocates his interest.
(Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co.,
84 Phil. 342)
2) It is excluded on the same ground
as any hearsay evidence, that, the lack
of opportunity for cross-examination by
the adverse party. (National
Development Co., v. Workmen's
Compensation Commission, 19 SCRA
865)
b. When self-serving or favorable
admissions are admissible:
1) If made in open court
2) giving full opportunity to the
adverse party
3) to exercise his right of cross-
examination.
Rule 129 Sec. 4 vs. Rule 130 Sec. 26
First is a JUDICIAL ADMISSION, which is
conclusive upon the admitter whether in writing
or oral. This applies to civil, criminal cases and
even special proceedings.
Second is an EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION.
Under this rule, the admission is admissible
3/16/201819
only if it is against the interest of the admitter.
(otherwise it is a self-serving statement)
Example: Flight is considered a
disserving act, since it is prejudicial to the
interest of the accused. Flight is considered as
circumstantial evidence of the guilt of the
accused. BUT non-flight cannot be used as
evidence to prove his innocence, because that
will be considered as an act that is favorable to
the interest of the accused.
Extra-judicial Confession vs. Admission
A confession, as distinguished from admission,
is a declaration made at any time by a person,
voluntarily and without compulsion or
inducement, stating or acknowledging that he
had committed or participated in the
commission of a crime.
The term, admission, on the other hand, is
usually applied in criminal cases to statements
of fact by the accused which do not directly
involve an acknowledgment of the guilt of the
accused or of criminal intent to commit the
offense with which he is charged. (U.S. v.
Corrales, 28 Phil. 365)
Admission by silence.
a. An act or declaration made
1) in the presence and
2) within the hearing or
3) observation
b. of a party who does or says nothing
c. when the act or declaration
1) is such as naturally to call for action
or comment if not true, and
2) when proper and possible for him to
do so,
d. may be given in evidence against him.
(Sec. 32, Rule 130, ROC arrangement and
numbering supplied)
Exceptions to the rule on admission by
silence or instances where there is no
admission by silence:
1) Where no good reason exists for the party
to comment on the act or declaration (Veil v.
Strong, 10 Vt. 455), as when the act or
declaration was not specifically directed to the
party who remained silent. (80 A.L.R., Anno.,
1272)
2) When the party had no opportunity to
comment on the act or declaration. (People v.
Ranario, 49 Phil. 220)
 hlp©2009 Page 20
3) Where the act or declaration was made in
the course of an official investigation. (People
v. Tia Fong, 98 Phil. 609)
4) When silence is upon advice of counsel.
(People v. Kozlowski, 115 A.L.R. 1505)
res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
or res inter alios acta Rule
(First Part of Rule) Statements made or
matters accomplished between two parties
cannot prejudice a third party. (Blanza v.
Arcangel, 21 SCRA 4)
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced
by an act, declaration, or omission of another,
except as hereinafter provided. (Sec. 28, Rule
130, ROC)
Exceptions to res inter alios acta:
1) When there is a rational similarity or
resemblance between the conditions giving rise
to he fact offered and the circumstances
surrounding the issue or fact to be proved.
(Cruz, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R.
No. 126713, prom. July 27, 1998)
2) In actions based on fraud and deceit,
because it sheds light on the state of mind or
knowledge of a person; it provides insight into
such person's motive or intent; it uncovers a
scheme, design or plan; or it reveals a mistake.
(Cruz, supra)
3) (Vicarious Admissions)- The rights of a party
may be prejudiced by the act, declaration or
omission of another when between the party
making the admission and against whom it is
offered there exists a relation of:
a) partnership;
b) agency;
c) joint interest;
d) conspiracy; or
e) privity.
Exceptions to the rule that extrajudicial
statements of an accused implicating a co-
accused may not be utilized against the
latter:
(1) the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or
adopted the confession by not questioning its
truthfulness;
(2) the accused persons voluntarily and
independently executed identical confessions
without collusion and without contradiction by
the others present;
(3) the accused admitted the facts after being
apprised of the confession;
(4) if they are charged as co-conspirators of the
crime which was confessed by 1 of the accused
3/16/201820
and the confession is used only as a
corroborating evidence;
(5) the confession is used as circumstantial
evidence to show the probability of participation
by the co-conspirator;
(6) the confessant testified for his co-
defendant;
(7) the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession
is corroborated by other evidence on record.
(People vs. Raquel, 1996)
Rule on admission by co-partner or agent:
1) The act or declaration of a partner or
2) agent within the scope of his authority and
during the existence of the partnership or
agency,
3) may be given in evidence against such party
4) after the partnership or agency
a) is shown by evidence [(testimonial
or documentary, which may be 2ndary
evidence)]
b) other than such act or declaration.
5) The same rule applies to the act or
declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or
other person jointly interested with the party.
(Sec. 29, Rule 130, ROC arrangement and
numbering supplied)
Rule on admission by conspirator:
1) The act or declaration of a conspirator
2) relating to the conspiracy and during its
existence,
3) may be given in evidence against the co-
conspirator
4) after the conspiracy
a) is shown by evidence
(Circumstantial Evidence- cannot be proven by
documentary evidence, since conspirators do
not normally reduce their agreement in writing)
b) other than such act or declaration.
(Sec. 30, Rule 130)
*This refers to extrajudicial acts and
declarations of a conspirator and not to his
testimony as a witness in the trial. (People v.
Atencio, L-222518, Jan. 17, 1968)
Rule on Admission by Privies – Rule 130,
Sec. 31
- Where one derives title to property from
another, the act, declaration, or omission of the
latter, while holding the title, in relation to the
property, is evidence against the former
Example: X, father of Z, while the
former was alive, openly told his acquaintances,
that the land where his house stood had already
been sold to Y. Here, the declaration by X is not
 hlp©2009 Page 21
admissible against Z, the sole heir of Y,
because the statement was made after X held
title to the land.
Second Part of Inter alios acta Rule
(Similar Acts as Evidence)
Rule 130, Secs. 34
- Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to prove that
he did or did not do the same or similar thing at
another time; but it may be received to prove a
specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan,
system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and
the like.
Confessions – Rule 130, Sec. 133; Rule 115
(e); Art. III, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution
- Declaration of an accused acknowledging his
guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
necessarily included therein; may be given in
evidence against him.
- Confession is evidence of high order:
1) There is no evidence of a higher quality than
a confession, It represents the outward
manifestation of a man. Unless, therefore, the
confession is nullified by evidence of duress, the
same is admissible as an evidence of guilt of a
high quality. (People v. Garcia, 54 Phil. 329,
358)
2) If a confession be true and voluntary, the
deliberate act of the accused with a full
comprehension of its significance, there is no
impediment to its admission as evidence and it
then becomes evidence of a high order, since it
is supported by the presumption, a very strong
one, that no person of normal mind will
deliberately and knowingly confess himself to
be the perpetrator of a crime, especially if it be
a serious crime, unless prompted by truth and
conscience. (People v. Zea, et al., 130 SCRA
87, 88)
Probative value of recantations: They are
looked upon with disfavor as recantations are
usually secured through intimidation or for a
monetary consideration. (Molina v. People, 259
SCRA 138)
General rule on admissibility of confession:
A confession is admissible only against the
accused who made it and not against his co-
accused, for as against the latter, the
confession would be hearsay and res inter alios
acta. (People v. Talledo, 85 Phil. 533)
Exceptions: when a confession is admissible
3/16/201821
against co-accused:
1) When the confession of an accused
implicating his co-accused is made judicially at
a joint trial (U.S. v. Macamay, 36 Phil. 893) or
when the extrajudicial statements implicating a
co-accused are repeated in open court (People
v. Ola, G.R. No. L-47147, July 3, 1987),
because the co-accused as a chance to cross-
examine.
2) When the offer in evidence of an
extrajudicial confession against a co-accused is
not objected to. (People v. Atienza, 86 Phil.
576)
3) When the co-accused against whom an
extrajudicial confession is offered had, by his
acts, conducts and declarations adopted he
confession as his own. (People v. Atienza,
supra; People v. Orencia, 47 Phil. 970)
4) Where several accused, without collusion,
made extrajduicial confessions which are
identical in essential details and corroborated
by other evidence, such confession is
admissible against the others. (People v.
Pelonia, L-14624, July 24, 1960)
5) The confession of a conspirator is admissible
against his co-conspirator provided it was made
during the existence of the conspiracy. (Sec.
30, Rule 130, ROC; People v. Ramirez, L-5875,
May 15, 1953)
6) When the recitals in the extrajudicial
confession of an accused is corroborated in its
important details by other proofs in the record,
it may be admitted against the other accused.
(People v. Villanueva, L-12687, July 31, 1962)
Extrajudicial confessions identical in
material respects (also known as
interlocking confessions) admissible against
all declarants:
1) As circumstantial evidence. Extrajudicial
confessions independently made without
collusion and are identical with each other in
their material respects and confirmatory of the
other are admissible as circumstantial evidence
against co-accused implicated therein to show
the probability of the latter's actual participation
in the commission of the crime. (People v.
Encipido, et al., 146 SCRA 492)
2) As corroborative evidence. They are
admissible as corroborative evidence against
the other accused, if it is clear from other facts
and circumstances presented that persons other
than the declarants themselves participated in
the commission of the crime charged and
proved. (Ibid.)
They are what is commonly known as
 hlp©2009
interlocking confession and constitute an
exception to the general rule that extrajudicial
confessions/admissions are admissible in
evidence only against the declarants thereof.
(Ibid.)
The invocation of amnesty is in the
nature of a plea of confession and avoidance,
which means that the pleader admits the
allegations against him, but disclaims liability
therefor on account of intervening facts which,
if proved, would bring the crime charged within
the scope of the amnesty proclamation.
(People v. Salig, et al., 133 SCRA 69 citing Vera
v. People, 7 SCRA 153)
What is meant by corpus delicti ?
a. It refers to a particular crime and
signifies that the specific offense had been
actually committed by someone, being
composed of two elements:
1) certain results were produced, and
2) someone is criminally responsible.
(People v. Marquez, 77 Phil. 83)
b. It also means actual commission of
the crime charged. (People v. Madrid, 88 Phil.
1; People v. Sanchez, 89 Phil. 423), or the
specific fact of loss or injury. (People v. Garcia,
99 Phil. 381)
Examples of corpus delicti:
a. In murder or homicide, the corpus delicti is
the fact of death (People v. Garcia, 99 Phil.
381), which may be proved even
circumstantially. (People v. Sasota, 91 Phil.
111; People v. Moro Ansang, 93 Phil. 44).
b. In robbery or theft, the fact of loss. (People
v. Niem, 75 Phil. 668)
c. In arson, the fact of burning, (People v.
Marquez, 77 Phil. 83; People v. Mones, 58 Phil.
46)
d. In an affray, the fact that pistol shots were
heard and a bystander was killed by one of the
shots constitute evidence of corpus delicti,
which is the violent death of a person, whether
feloniously caused or not. (People v. Nocum,
77 Phil. 1018)
Conviction for murder proper even if victim’s
body is not produced: In all crimes against
persons in which the death of the victim is an
essential element of the offense, there must be
satisfactory evidence of the fact of death and
the identity of the victim that a crime has been
committed which is what corpus delicti really
means.
Page 22 3/16/201822
The failure of the prosecution to produce the
body of the victim does not imply the absence
of corpus delicti for the term does not refer to
the body of the murdered person. (People v.
Centeno, et al., 130 SCRA 209)
- Sec. 17, Art III – No person shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself.
The operative act in determining
whether the right against self-incrimination has
been violated is when the police investigation is
no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved
crime but has begun to focus on a particular
suspect who has been taken into custody by
the police to carry out a process of
interrogation that lends itself to eliciting
incriminatory statements and not the signing by
the suspect of his supposed extrajudicial
confession. (People vs. Compil, 1995)
By affixing their signatures on the
boxes, accused in effect made a tacit admission
of the crime charged. These signatures are
tantamount to an extrajudicial confession made
without the assistance of counsel, which is not
sanctioned by the Bill of Rights. (People vs.
Wong Chuen Ming, 1996)
Any confession, including a re-
enactment without admonition of the right to
silence and to counsel, and without counsel
chosen by the accused is inadmissible in
evidence. (People vs. Yip Wai Ming, 1996)
The declaration of an accused expressly
acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be
given in evidence against him and any person,
otherwise competent to testify as a witness
who heard the confession is competent to
testify as to the substance of what he heard if
he heard and understood it. (People vs.
Maqueda, 1995)
Compromises – Rule 130, Sec. 27
1.Civil Cases – An offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and is not admissible
against the offeror.
2. Criminal Cases – An offer of compromise by
the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt EXCEPT in cases
involving quasi-offenses
(criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to
be compromised.
- A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an
unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser
offense, is not admissible in evidence against
 hlp©2009 Page 23
the accused who made the plea or offer.
The Good Samaritan Rule: 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 has long been held that in cases of
public crimes, the accused is permitted to show
that the offer was not made under a
consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the
inconvenience of imprisonment of for some
other reason which would justify a claim by the
accused that the offer was not in truth an
admission of his guilt or an attempt to avoid
the legal consequences which would ordinarily
ensue therefrom. (People vs. Godoy, 1995)
A plea of forgiveness may be
considered as analogous to an attempt to
compromise. (People vs. De Guzman, 1996)
An offer to compromise does not require
that a criminal complaint be first filed before
the offer can be received as evidence against
the offeror. (People vs. Yparriguirre, 1997)
THE Hearsay Rule
1. Testimonial Knowledge – Rule 130, Sec.
36
1 What can a witness testify to?
- A witness can testify only to those facts which
he knows of his personal knowledge = those
which are derived from his own perception,
except as otherwise provided in these rules.
The hearsay evidence rule applies also
to affidavits when the supposed affiant never
identified the affidavit and there was no
opportunity for the prosecution to cross-
examine him/her. (People vs. Brioso, 1971).
The testimony of a witness regarding a
statement made by another person, if intended
to establish the truth of the facts asserted in
the statement is clearly hearsay evidence. It is
otherwise if the purpose is merely to establish
the fact that the statement was made, or the
tenor of such statement. (People vs. Cusi,
1965)
The testimony of a witness on the
confession made to him by the accused is not
hearsay. He is testifying to a fact which he
knows of his personal knowledge (was
testifying to the fact that the accused told him
that he stabbed the victim) and not to the truth
of the statement of the accused. (People vs.
Gaddi, 1989)
3/16/201823
Examples of hearsay evidence:
1) The testimony of a witness as to what he
has heard another person say about the facts in
dispute. (People v. Reyes, 76 Phil. 354;
Aldecoa & Co., v. WArner Barnes & Co., 30 Phil.
153) NOTE: See concept of independent
relevant statement.
2) Affidavits. (Marisfosque v. Luna, L-9095,
May 25, 1957; People v. Pagkaliwagan, 76 Phil.
457)
General rule: Affidavits without
presenting affiant in court is mere hearsay:
The constitutional right to confrontation
precludes reliance on affidavits. Such a
constitutional safeguard cannot be satisfied
unless the opportunity is given to the accused
to test the credibility of any person, who, by
affidavit or deposition would impute the
commission of an offense to him. It would be
to disregard one of the most valuable
guarantees of a person accused if solely on the
affidavits presented, his guilt could be
predicated. (People v. Santos, et al., 139 SCRA
586-587 citing People v. Lavarez, 23 SCRA
1301)
Exceptions: when affidavits are given
weight:
1) Where said affidavits are
overwhelming, uncontroverted by
competent evidence and not inherently
improbable. (Top-Weld Manufacturing,
Inc. v. ECED, S.A., et al., 138 SCRA
132)
2) Under the Rule on Summary
Procedure for civil cases;
3) When a motion is based on facts not
appearing of record the court may hear
the matter on affidavits or depositions
presented by the respective parties, but
the court may direct hat the matter be
heard wholly or partly on oral testimony
or depositions. (Sec. 7, Rule 133, ROC)
3) A letter offered in evidence to establish the
facts in issue. (Pastor v. Gaspar, 2 Phil. 592;
People v. Carlos, 47 Phil. 626)
4) A medical certificate to the extent of the
injuries found by the doctor on the offended
party's body. (De Guia v. Meralco, 40 Phil.
706)
5) A resolution of the municipal council of a
certain municipality as to the character of an
accused in a criminal case. (U.S. v. Tanjuatco,
1 Phil. 374)
6) Newspaper Articles- (Double deck hearsay or
Double hearsay)
 hlp©2009
Theory of the hearsay rule: When a human
utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of
the fact asserted in it, the credit of the assertor
becomes the basis of inference, and therefore
the assertion can be received as evidence only
when made on the witness stand, subject to the
test of cross-examination.
TWO CONCEPTS OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE:
1. Second hand information (not derived
from personal knowledge of witness)
2. Testimony by a witness derived from
his personal knowledge BUT the
adverse party is not given opportunity
to cross-examine
Example (No. 2): Plaintiff presents
witness A. A testifies in court on
matters personally known to him. After
direct examination, court tells that
defendant can cross examine on next
scheduled hearing. On the next
scheduled hearing witness A no longer
appears and could no longer be located.
[The remedy here now is to ask that
the testimony of witness A be stricken
out since it now becomes hearsay]
Rationale behind the non-admissibility of
hearsay evidence:
1) A witness can testify only to those facts
which he knows of his own knowledge; and
2) To preserve the right of parties to cross-
examine the original witness or person claiming
to have knowledge of the transaction or
occurrence. (People v. Pagkaliwagan, 76 Phil.
457)
The right to cross-examine he adverse party's
witnesses is essential in the administration of
justice for it is the only means of testing the
credibility of witnesses and their testimony, and
this right is not available in respect of hearsay
evidence since he declarant is not in court.
(Donnelly v. U.S., 228 U.S. 243)
Principle of Independently Relevant
Statements
- Under this principle regardless of the truth or
falsity of a statement, the fact that such
statements have been made is relevant. The
hearsay rule does not apply, and the
statements are admissible as evidence.
Evidence as to the making of such statement is
not secondary but primary, for the statement
itself may constitute a fact in issue or be
Page 24 3/16/201824
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of
such a fact.
- Independent relevant statements are hearsay
in character but not legal hearsay, hence they
are not considered as exceptions to the hearsay
rule.
Illustration: A was drinking with his buddies. A
told them that: “My neighbor is a thief”. Later
on A’s neighbor was charged with theft.
Prosecution calls as his witness one of the
drinking buddies. The drinking buddy testifies in
court saying: “The accused is a thief because I
heard A says so.” [THIS IS HEARSAY
EVIDENCE]
Now, supposing the neighbor filed a
libel case against A. The drinking buddy serves
as a witness for the plaintiff, and says: “I heard
A said that the plaintiff is a thief.”. [Now this
time this is not hearsay, because the FACT IN
ISSUE is whether or not the utterances were
made by a particular person, regardless of the
truth or falsity of the statement]
CASE: ESTRADA v. DESIERTO, APRIL 3,
2001
Issue: Whether or not the use of the Angara
diary to determine the state of mind of
President Estrada violates the rule against the
admission of hearsay evidence
Held: 1) Angara diary is not an OUT-OF-COURT
STATEMENT, since it is part of the pleadings in
the case.
2) Angara diary is not covered by the hearsay
rule. Evidence is called hearsay when its
probative force depends in whole or in part, on
the competency and credibility of some persons
other than the witness by whom it is sought to
produce it.
3) Admission are not excluded by hearsay
evidence. The Angara diary contains direct
statements of petitioner which can be
categorized as admissions of a party. And
though the diary is not Estrada’s hence non-
binding on him, SC held that the doctrine of
adoptive admission applies.
4) res inter alios acta rule- exception:
admissions by a co-partner or agent. Executive
Secretary Angara was the little president, an
alter ego of the president. Indeed, he was
authorized by the petitioner to act for him in
the critical hours and days before he abandoned
Malacanan.
5) Independently Relevant Statement- there
are two classes: (1) Statements which are the
very facts in issue; (2) Statements which are
 hlp©2009 Page 25
circumstantial evidence. The second class
includes:
a. Statement of a person knowing his
state of mind, that is his mental condition,
knowledge, belief, intention, ill will and other
emotions
b. Statements of a person which show
his physical condition as illnesses and the like
c. Statements of a person which an
inference may be made as to the state of mind
of another, that is the knowledge, belief,
motive, good or bad faith of the latter
d. Statements which may identify the
date, place and persons in questions
e. Statements showing the lack of
credibility of a witness
The Angara diary contains statements of the
petitioner which reflect his state of mind and
are circumstantial evidence of his intent to
resign .
2. Exceptions
2.1 Dying Declaration – Rule 130, Sec. 37
- Declaration was made under the
consciousness of an impending death
- Declaration refers to cause and surrounding
circumstances of the death of the declarant
- Declaration may be received in any case
wherein declarant’s death is the subject of
inquiry (In one case. The husband was shot and
wife was stabbed. The wife died instantly. The
husband was brought to the hospital and made
a statement that it was X who stab her wife.
The husband then died. The statement is not a
dying declaration because it pertains to the
wife)
- The declarant must be competent as a witness
(What if declarant is proved to be a congenital
liar? Still this exception may apply, because he
is not disqualified from testifying in court if he
were alive)
- The declarant actually died, otherwise, the
declaration may be admitted as part of the res
gestae and not as a dying declaration
APPLICABILITY: Both Civil and Criminal.
[Criminal: Only those which involve death,
homicide, murder, parricide, robbery with
homicide, rape with homicide]
Victim need not state that he has lost all
hope of recovery. It is sufficient that
circumstances are such as to inevitably lead to
the conclusion that at the time the declaration
was made, the declarant would not expect to
survive the injury from which he actually died.
3/16/201825
The degree and seriousness of the
wounds and the fact that death supervened
thereafter constitute substantial evidence of the
victim's consciousness of his impending death.
(People v. Tanaman, et al., G.R. No. 71768,
July 28, 1987)
Dying declaration has weight even if
declarant did not die immediately after his
declaration: The fact that the declarant died
four (4) hours after his statement does not
diminish the probative value of the dying
declaration since it is not indispensable that the
a declarant expires immediately thereafter.
It is the belief of impending death and
not the rapid succession of death that renders
the dying declaration admissible. (People v.
Bautista, G.R. No. 111149, prom. September 5,
1997)
Mere gesture of dying victim inconclusive:
The gesture of a dying woman in pointing to a
direction, when asked for the identity of her
assailant, is too vague to be given such
probative value in determining the culpability of
the accused.
REASON: Unlike an oral or a written
declaration, a simple gesture of the hand
unaccompanied by words, is open to various
interpretations by the witness who testifies to
its existence. Thus, the evidence comes to the
court couched in the witness' second hand
perception and possibly, imbued with his
personal meanings and biases. This is what
makes hearsay evidence objectionable. The
second hand evidence is placed before the court
without the benefit of cross-examination by the
party against whom it is brought, nor of any
other means of assessing the competence and
credibility of the source. (People v. Ola, G.R.
No. L-47147, July 3, 1987)
CASE: The crime charged is rape with
homicide. The victim before death tells to the
police investigator/doctor: “I was raped.” [This
is not a dying declaration, because the
statement has nothing to do with the cause and
circumstances surrounding the death. But this
may be admitted as part of res gestae]
2.2 Res Gestae – Rule 130, Sec. 42
- What are admissible as part of the res gestae:
- Statements made by a person while a starting
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior
or subsequent thereto with respect to the
circumstances thereof
 hlp©2009
- Statements accompanying an equivocal act
material to the issue and giving it legal
significance
TWO CONCEPTS:
A. Spontaneous Statements
B. Statements accompanying Equivocal Acts-
Equivocal means ambiguous; capable of
different interpretations.
EXAMPLE: a) SPONTANEOUS
STATEMENT: X barged into the house of Y, tied
her to a chair and robbed her. X brought Y’s
maid to a bedroom and raped her. Y could hear
the maid crying: “Huwag! Maawa ka sa akin!”.
When X fled, Y with the maid rushed to the
police station and told the police what
happened. The maid told the police that despite
her pleas X still raped her. The police noticed
that the maid was hysterical and on the verge
of collapse. X was charged with robbery with
rape. During the trial the maid could no longer
be located. The prosecution presents the
policeman to testify on what the maid told him.
[The testimony would be hearsay but as an
exception to the hearsay rule. The statements
made by the maid fall within the res gestae
rule]
b) EQUIVOCAL/VERBAL ACTS:
witness testifies on the stand for the plaintiff in
a collection case where the defendant denies
having borrowed P10,000 from the plaintiff. The
debt is not evidenced by a promissory note
because plaintiff claims that defendant had
orally borrowed money from him in the past
and had always paid. This time he refuses to
pay. The witness testifies that one year ago he
saw the plaintiff give money to the defendant.
And that he heart the plaintiff said that: “Here’s
the money you are borrowing from me.”
Further, he said that he heard the defendant
say: “Thank you, I will pay one year after.”
[Here the equivocal act of handing the money
was given significance by the statement of the
plaintiff]
DYING DECLARATION vs. RES GESTAE
Time when statements made: DYING
DECLARATION- statements must be made after
the injury has been inflicted upon the applicant.
RES GESTAE- in so far
as startling occurrence is concerned, the
statements could be made prior or
simultaneous with or after the startling
occurrence.
Page 26 3/16/201826
Death of declarant: DYING DECLARATION-
declarant must die
RES GESTAE- no need for
declarant to die
Declarant: DYING DECLARATION- must be the
victim
RES GESTAE- anybody
PEOPLE vs. CLOUD (265 SCRA 472)
Concept of independently relevant
statements and res gestae applied
simultaneously. [N.B. dying declaration
may likewise be applied simultaneously
with independently relevant statement]
Josephine Aguilar was at the emergency room
of a hospital to have some stitches removed
from her daughter’s head when she saw a boy
being carried by a man, followed by an old
woman who was shouting hysterically. The
boy’s face was swollen and bruised and his
body covered with dry blood. The old woman,
apparently the boy’s grandmother, cried and
repeatedly screamed. “Pinatay siya ng sariling
ama!”. The old woman told the people inside
A the emergency room that the boy’s father had
beaten him up, tied his hands, and stabbed
him.
Ruling of SC: Insofar as the statements of
Rufina Alconyes(old woman) are concerned,
they are admissible as part of the res gestae,
they having been caused by and did result from
the startling, if not gruesome, occurrence that
she witnessed; and these were shortly
thereafter uttered by her with spontaneity,
without prior opportunity to contrive the same.
The report made thereof by Josephine
Aguilar is not hearsay since she was actually
there and personally heard the statements of
Alconyes which she recounted in court. Her
account of said statements of Alconyes are
admissible under the doctrine of independently
relevant statements, with respect to the tenor
and not the truth thereof, since independent of
the truth or falsity of the same they are
relevant to the issue on the cause of the death
of the victim.
2.3 Declaration Against Interest – Rule 130,
Sec. 38
By whom made: a person deceased, or unable
to testify, against the interest of the declarant
Subject of declaration/act: the fact asserted in
the declaration was at the time it was made so
 hlp©2009 Page 27
far contrary to declarant's own interest, that a
reasonable man in his position would not have
made the declaration unless he believed it to be
true
Against whom received: such may be received
in evidence against himself or his successors in
interest and against third persons.
REQUISITES:
a. The declaration is made by
1) a person deceased, or
2) unable to testify [i.e. in foreign
country or physical/mental impairments]
b. against the interest of the declarant,
[declarant MUST KNOW that it is against his
interest]
c. if the fact asserted in the declaration
1) was at the time it was made
2) so far contrary to declarant's own
interest,
3) that a reasonable man in his
position
a) would not have made the
declaration
b) unless he believed it to be
true. (Sec. 38, Rule 130, ROC)
Declaration against interest distinguished
from admission:
1) An admission is not necessarily against the
interest of the admitter WHILE the declaration
must be against the declarant's own
interest(penal, proprietary, financial)
2) An admission may be received even if the
admitter is alive WHILE the declarant must be
dead or is unable to testify;
3) An admission may be received in evidence
only against the admitter and those identified
with him in legal interest WHILE the declaration
may be received even against third persons.
(Smith v. Moore, 142 N.C. 277)
Inability to testify = either dead, mentally
incapacitated or physically incompetent. Mere
absence from the jurisdiction does not make
him ipso facto unavailable. Fuentes vs. CA
(1996)
CASE: People v. Holgado
Jose was killed. Pedro admitted that he was the
one who killed Jose. Unfortunately, Pedro also
died. The prosecutor filed an information
charging Juan with homicide of Jose. The
defense presented a witness who heard Pedro
3/16/201827
say that he was the one who killed Jose. SC
held that Pedro’s declaration is a declaration
against interest. It is therefore admissible to
show that the accused did not commit the crime
charged.
2.4 Pedigree – Rule 130, Sec. 39
By whom made: person deceased, or unable to
testify
Subject of declaration/act: pedigree of another
person related to him by birth or marriage
When admissible: occurred before the
controversy, and the relationship between the
two persons is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration.
Pedigree - includes relationship, family
genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates
when and the places where these fast occurred,
and the names of the relatives. It embraces
also facts of family history intimately connected
with pedigree.
2.5 Family Tradition – Rule 130, Sec. 40
Subject of exception: reputation or tradition
existing in a family previous to the controversy,
in respect to the pedigree of any one of its
members, may be received in evidence if the
witness testifying thereon be also a member of
the family, either by consanguinity or affinity.
-Entries in family bibles or other family books or
charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and
the like, may be received as evidence of
pedigree.
2.6 Common Reputation – Rule 130, Sec. 41
- What are admissible?
- Common reputation existing previous to the
controversy, respecting facts of public or
general interest > 30 years old, or respecting
marriage or moral character, may be given in
evidence.
- Monuments and inscriptions in public places
may be received as evidence of common
reputation
Note: When it comes to presentation of
evidence concerning the good or bad moral
character, the only evidence admissible is
evidence of COMMON REPUTATION. So if
character evidence is allowed a litigant cannot
present proof that he is of good moral
character.
Example: A parish priest of the
community where the accused belongs is
presented as witness. And the parish priest
testifies that the accused goes to mass
everyday and receives holy communion. [The
 hlp©2009 Page 28
testimony is not admissible to show the
accused’s good moral character; Moral
character for purposes of evidence can be
demonstrated ONLY by evidence of
REPUTATION]. So the parish priest should tell
the court what is the reputation of the accused
in the community.
Principle of NEGATIVE REPUTE
If in a community nothing good or bad is heard
about a particular person, the presumption is
that he is really a good person, because that
flows from the established principle in
substantive law that everyone is acting in good
faith.
2.7 Entries in the Course of Business – Rule
130, Sec. 42; Rule 8,
REE
When made: Entries made at, or near the time
of transactions to which they refer
By whom made: by a person deceased, or
unable to testify, who was in a position to know
the facts therein stated,
Treatment of such evidence: prima facie
evidence, if such person made the entries in his
professional capacity or in the performance of
duty and in the ordinary or regular course of
business or duty.
Rule 8, Section 1. Hearsay rule exception: A
memorandum, report, record or data
compilation of acts, events, conditions,
opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic,
optical or other similar means at or near the
time of or from transmission or supply of
information by a person with knowledge
thereof, and kept in the regular course or
conduct of a business activity, and such was the
regular practice to make the memorandum,
report, record, or data compilation by
electronic, optical or similar means, all of which
are shown by the testimony of the custodian or
other qualified witnesses.
Rule 8, Section 2. This presumption may be
overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness
of the source of information or the method or
circumstances of the preparation, transmission
or storage thereof.
2.8 Official Records – Rule 130, Sec. 44
When made: Entries made at, or near the time
of transactions to which they refer.
By whom made: by a person deceased, or
unable to testify, who was in a position to know
3/16/201828
the facts therein stated,
Treatment of such evidence: prima facie
evidence, if such person made the entries in his
professional capacity or in the performance of
duty and in the ordinary or regular course of
business or duty.
The report submitted by a police officer
in the performance of his duties on the basis of
his own personal observation of the facts
reported, may properly be constituted as an
exception. (Caltex vs. Africa, 1966)
Entries in a police blotter are not
conclusive proof of the truth of such entries.
(People vs. Cabuang, 1993)
2.9 Commercial Lists – Rule 130, Sec. 45
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.
2.10 Learned Treatises – Rule 130, Sec. 46
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on
a subject of history, law, science, or art is
admissible as tending to prove the truth of a
matter stated therein if the court takes judicial
notice, or a witness expert in the subject
testifies, that the writer of the statement in the
treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in
his profession or calling as expert in the
subject.
2.11 Prior Testimony – Rule 130, Sec. 47
By whom made: a witness deceased or unable
to testify,
When given: in a former case or proceeding,
judicial or administrative, involving the same
parties and subject matter,
When admissible: may be given in evidence
against the adverse party who had the
opportunity to cross-examine him.
“Unable to testify” refers to an inability
proceeding from a grave cause almost
amounting to death as when the witness is old
and has lost the power of speech. (Tan vs. CA,
1967)
Conduct and Character as Evidence
Conduct – Rule 130, Secs. 34-35
- Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to prove that
 hlp©2009 Page 29
he did or did not do the same or 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.
- An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of
money or to deliver a written instrument or
specific personal property is, if rejected without
valid cause, equivalent to the actual production
and tender of the money, instrument, or
property.
Character – Rule 130, Sec. 51; Rule 132, Sec.
14
General Rule: Character evidence is not
admissible, [because it is purely circumstantial]
exceptions-
1. In criminal cases –
- Accused = may prove his good moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged.
- Prosecution = may not prove his bad moral
character unless in rebuttal.
- Offended Party = his/her good or bad moral
character may be proved if it tends to establish
in any reasonable degree the probability or
improbability of the offense charged.
2. In 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.
- Witness = Evidence of his/her good character
is not admissible until such character has been
impeached.
While evidence of another crime is, as a
rule, not admissible in a prosecution for
robbery; it is admissible when it is otherwise
relevant, as when it tends to identify defendant
as the perpetrator and tends to show is
presence at the scene of the crime or in the
vicinity of the crime at the time charged, or
when it is evidence of a circumstance
connected with the crime. (People vs. Irang,
1937)
Good or bad moral character of the
victim is not necessary in a crime of murder
where the killing is committed through
treachery or premeditation. (People vs.
Soliman, 1957)
V. Opinion Rule – Rule 130, Secs. 48-50
General Rule: The opinion of a witness is not
admissible (R130, ß48)
Except:
1. Expert witness: opinion of a witness on a
3/16/201829
matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience or training which he shown to
possess (R130, ß49)
2. Ordinary witness: The opinion of a witness
for which proper basis is given, may be
received in evidence regarding —
(a) The identity of a person about whom he has
adequate knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient
familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom
he is sufficiently acquainted.
(d) The witness may also testify on his
impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person. (R130,
ß50)
There is no precise requirement as to
the mode in which skill or experience shall have
been acquired. Scientific study and training are
not always essential to the competency of a
witness as an expert. Knowledge acquired by
doing is no less valuable than that acquired by
study. (Dilag Co. vs. Merced, 1949)
Polygraph test has not as yet attained
scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate
means of ascertaining truth or deception.
(People vs. Adoviso, 1999)
Expert opinions are not ordinarily
conclusive in the sense that they must be
accepted as true on the subject of their
testimony, but are generally regarded as purely
advisory; the courts may place whatever weight
they choose upon such testimony and may
reject it, if they find that it is inconsistent with
the facts in the case or otherwise unreasonable.
(Punzalan v. Commission on Elections, et al.,
G.R. No. 126669)
Testimony of handwriting expert not
indispensable to COMELEC. Handwriting
experts, while probably useful, are not
indispensable in examining or comparing
handwriting; this can be done by the COMELEC
itself. It was ruled by the Supreme Court that
evidence aliunde is not allowed to prove that a
ballot is marked, an inspection of the ballot
itself being sufficient. ((Punzalan v.
Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No.
126669)
VI. Burden of Proof and Presumptions
1. Burden of Proof – Rule 131, Sec. 1
Burden of proof (Risk of non-persuasion): duty
of a party to present evidence on the facts in
issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount required by law.
 hlp©2009
Criminal Cases: The burden of proof is on
the prosecution, because under Rule 133 the
accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is
demonstrated by proof beyond reasonable
doubt
Civil Cases: The usual principle is that
whoever makes an affirmative allegation has
the burden of proof
Infringement cases: The burden of proof to
substantiate a charge of infringement is with
the plaintiff. But where he plaintiff introduces
the patent in evidence, and the same is in due
form, there is created a prima facie
presumption of its correctness and validity. The
decision of the Commissioner of Patent (now
the Director of the Intellectual Property Office),
in granting the patent is presumed to be
correct.
The burden of going forward with the
evidence (burden of evidence) then shifts to the
defendant to overcome by competent evidence
this legal presumption. (Maguan v. Court of
Appeals, et al., 146 SCRA 116, 117)
Two separate burdens in Burden of Proof:
1. Burden of going forward- that of
producing evidence
2. Burden of persuasion- burden of
persuading the trier of fact that the
burdened party is entitled to prevail
Illustration of going forward with the evidence:
For example after the existence of a debt has
been proven by the creditor the burden of
proving payment devolves upon the debtor.
Where the debtor introduces evidence of
payment, the burden of going forward with the
evidence - as distinct from the general burden
of proof- shifts to the creditor who is then under
the duty of producing evidence to show non-
payment. (Jimenez, et al, v. NLRC, et al., G.R.
No,. 116960, prom. April 2, 1996)
In short, the burden of going forward is the
burden of producing evidence.
EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE or
no evidence is presented
CRIMINAL CASE: Accused is acquitted
CIVIL CASE:
a. When defendant does not file an
answer- Plaintiff wins
b. When defendant files an answer and
sets up purely negative defenses and no
evidence is presented by both sides-
Defendant wins because plaintiff has
Page 30 3/16/201830
not carried his burden
c. When defendant files an answer and
sets up affirmative defenses and no
evidence is presented by both sides-
Plaintiff wins
Example: The defendant filed
an answer: “I admit that I borrowed money
from the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has no
reason to run after me because I have paid that
account long time ago.” [If no evidence is
presented by both sides then plaintiff wins
because the defendant admitted the existence
of loan. And it is the defendant’s burden to
prove his affirmative defense.]
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE- the duty resting upon
a party, by means of evidence, to create or
meet a prima facie case.
BURDEN OF PROOF vs. BURDEN OF
EVIDENCE
Burden of Proof NEVER SHIFTS, while Burden of
Evidence is TRANSFERRED from one litigant to
another depending on the progress of trial.
Illustration: Plaintiff files a complaint for
recovery of a defaulted loan. Defendant files an
answer with a negative defense, denying the
existence of the loan. [ At the start, the plaintiff
has the burden of proof and also burden of
evidence, he should go to trial and present
evidence to show that he has a cause of action.
If he has introduced enough proof that he has a
cause of action, the burden of evidence will now
be shifted to the defendant. If defendant
presents enough evidence to prove his negative
defense then the burden of evidence is shifted
again to the plaintiff on rebuttal evidence.]
Can the accused in a criminal/civil case
before presenting his own evidence
ascertain conditionally or provisionally
whether the evidence presented by the
prosecution is enough to convict him?
Yes. In a criminal/civil case, the
accused(defendant/plaintiff) can easily
determine the sentiment of the court
concerning the quantum of evidence presented
by the prosecution(defendant/plaintiff) by
simply filing a demurrer to evidence with
leave of court.
PRINCIPLE OF NEGATIVING AVERMENT
A negative averment do not have to be proven
UNLESS the negative averment is an essential
part of the cause of action or defense.
 hlp©2009 Page 31
Example: In an information for illegal
possession of firearms, the information will
contain an averment that the accused does not
have a license to possess the firearm[negative
averment].
* In this case, the negative averment is an
essential part of the commission of the crime,
hence this must be proven.
Doctrine of equipoise or Equiponderance
Rule
Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in
equipoise or there is doubt on which side the
evidence preponderates, the party having the
burden of proof fails upon that issue. (Rivera
v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115625,
prom. January 23, 1998)
Therefore, as neither party was able to
make out a case, neither side could establish its
cause of action and prevail with the evidence it
had. They are thus no better off than before
they proceeded to litigate, and, as a
consequence thereof, the courts can only leave
them as they are. (Rivera, supra citing
Municipality of Candijay, Bohol v. Court of
Appeals, 251 SCRA 530)
2. Presumptions – Rule 131, Secs. 2-4
Presumption- an inference as to the existence
or non-existence of a fact which courts are
permitted to draw from the proof of other facts.
CLASSIFICATIONS
1. PRESUMPTION JURIS OR OF LAW- a
deduction which the law expressly directs to be
made from particular facts
-Must be made whenever the facts appear
which furnish the basis for the inference
-Reduced to fixed rules and form part of the
system of jurisprudence
2. PRESUMPTION HOMINIS OR OF FACT- a
deduction which reason draws from facts
proved without an express direction from the
law to that effect
-Discretionary on the court
-Derived from circumstances of a particular
case through common experience of mankind
CLASSIFICATIONS OF PRESUMPTIONS OF
LAW
1. Conclusive- not permitted to be overcome by
any proof to the contrary
2. Disputable- law permits to be overcome or
contradicted
3/16/201831
2.1 Conclusive
2.1.1. Whenever a party by his own
declaration, act, omission, has led another –
1 to believe a particular thing to
be true AND
2 to act upon such belief,
he cannot in any litigation arising out of such
declaration, act or omission be permitted to
falsify it. (Estoppel)
2.1.2. The TENANT is not permitted to deny
the title of his landlord at the time of the
COMMENCEMENT of the relation of landlord and
tenant between them.
Note: There is also a conclusive presumption
under the Rule 39,
which is a public policy
principle of
res judicata (a judgment is conclusive upon the
title to the thing or upon the political or legal
condition of a person, {judgment in rem or in
personam})
2.2 Disputable
CLASSIFICATIONS:
1. Presumption of innocence (Presumption of
good faith)
2. Presumption of regularity of official and
judicial acts
3. Presumption of regularity of private
transactions
- Person is innocent of a crime or wrong;
- Unlawful act is done with an unlawful intent;
- Person intends the ordinary consequences of
his voluntary act;
- Person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
- Evidence willfully suppressed would be
adverse if produced
ELEMENTS:
a. The suppression is wilful. (Sec. 3-e,
Rule 131, ROC) continue
b. The suppression is not in the
exercise of a privilege.
c. The evidence suppressed is not
merely corroborative.
d. The evidence is at the disposal only
of the suppressing party.
NOTES: Instances where adverse
presumption from suppression of evidence does
not apply:
a. If the evidence is at the disposal of
both parties. (People v. Ducay, 225 SCRA 1)
b. The suppression was not willful.
 hlp©2009 Page 32
c. The suppressed evidence is merely
corroborative or cumulative.
d. The suppression is an exercise of a
privilege. (People v. Navaja, 220 SCRA 624)
- Money paid by one to another was due to the
latter;
- Thing delivered by one to another belonged to
the latter;
- Obligation delivered up to the debtor has been
paid;
- Prior rents or installments had been paid when
a receipt for the later ones is produced;
- A person found in possession of a thing taken
in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the
taker and doer of the whole act; otherwise, that
things which a person possesses or exercises
acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
- Person in possession of an order on himself
for the payment of the money or the delivery of
anything has paid the money or delivered the
thing accordingly; person acting in public office
was regularly appointed or elected to it;
- Official duty has been regularly performed;
- A court or judge acting as such, whether in
the Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the
lawful exercise of jurisdiction;
- All the matters within an issue raised in a case
were laid before the court and passed upon by
it; all matters within an issue raised in a dispute
submitted for arbitration were laid before
arbitrators and passed upon by them;
- Private transactions have been fair and
regular;
- ordinary course of business has been
followed;
- there was a sufficient consideration for a
contract;
- negotiable instrument was given or indorsed
for a sufficient consideration;
- An indorsement of negotiable instrument was
made before the instrument was overdue and
at the place where the instrument is dated;
- A writing is truly dated;
- Letter duly directed and mailed was received
in the regular course of the mail;
- Absentee of 7 years, it being not known
whether or not he is alive, is considered dead
for all purposes except for succession.
= For the purpose of opening his succession: an
absence of 10 years, if disappeared after age of
75, absence of 5 years.
= The following shall be considered dead for all
purposes including the division of the estate
among the heirs:
= Person on board a vessel lost during a sea
3/16/201832
voyage, or an aircraft with is missing, who has
not been heard of for 4 years since the loss of
the vessel or aircraft;
= Member of the armed forces who has taken
part in armed hostilities, and has been missing
for 4 years;
= Person who has been in danger of death
under other circumstances and whose existence
has not been known for four years;
= Spouse, of a married person absent for 4
consecutive years, may contract a subsequent
marriage if he or she has well-founded belief
that the absent spouse is already death; 2
years in case of disappearance, where there is a
danger of death the circumstances hereinabove
provided. Before marrying again, the spouse
present must institute a summary proceedings
as provided in the Family Code and in the rules
for declaration of presumptive death of the
absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
reappearance of the absent spouse.
- Acquiescence resulted from a belief that the
thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law
or fact;
- Things have happened according to the
ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature
habits of life;
- Persons acting as copartners have entered
into a contract of co-partnership;
- A man and woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage;
- Property acquired by a man and a woman who
are capacitated to marry each other and who
live exclusively with each other as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage or under
void marriage, has been obtained by their joint
efforts, work or industry.
- In cases of cohabitation by a man and a
woman who are not capacitated to marry each
other and who have acquire properly through
their actual joint contribution of money,
property or industry, such contributions and
their corresponding shares including joint
deposits of money and evidences of credit are
equal.
- If the marriage is terminated and the mother
contracted another marriage within three
hundred days after such termination of the
former marriage, these rules shall govern in the
absence of proof to the contrary:
- A child born before 180 days after the
solemnization of the subsequent marriage is
considered to have been conceived during such
marriage, even though it is born within the 300
days after the termination of the former
 hlp©2009 Page 33
marriage.
- A child born after 180 days following the
celebration of the subsequent marriage is
considered to have been conceived during such
marriage, even though it be born within the 300
days after the termination of the former
marriage.
- A thing once proved to exist continues as long
as is usual with things of the nature
- The law has been obeyed;
- A printed or published book, purporting to be
printed or published by public authority, was so
printed or published;
- A printed or published book, purporting
contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of
the country where the book is published,
contains correct reports of such cases;
- A trustee or other person whose duty it was to
convey real property to a particular person has
actually conveyed it to him when such
presumption is necessary to perfect the title of
such person or his successor in interest;
- Except for purposes of succession, when 2
persons perish in the same calamity, and it is
not shown who died first, and there are no
particular circumstances from which it can be
inferred, the survivorship is determined from
the probabilities resulting from the strength and
the age of the sexes, according to the following
rules:
= Both < 15: older survived;
= Both > 60: younger survived;
= One <15; other >60: <15 survived;
= Both >15, <60 and the sex be different, the
male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be
the same, the older;
= One < 15 or >, and the other between those
ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.
- That if there is a doubt, as between two or
more persons who are called to succeed each
other, as to which of them died first, whoever
alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall
prove the same; in the absence of proof, they
shall be considered to have died at the same
time. (5a)
The presumption that evidence not
produced or willfully suppressed is adverse to
the party, will not apply if the evidence is at the
disposal of both the defense and the
prosecution and if the evidence is merely
conclusive. (People vs. Padiernos, 1976)
VII. Presentation of Evidence
Note: The Rules apply to Summary Procedure
but in a modified form, since in Summary
3/16/201833
Procedure the testimonies of the witnesses, (in
civil cases) will be reduced into writing in the
form of affidavit. Hence, there is no direct,
cross, re-cross or re-direct examination.
Affiant is not allowed in Summary
Procedure to embody hearsay testimony.
In criminal cases under Summary
Procedure, the affidavits of the witnesses take
the place of the direct examination. There is
cross examination
VOIR DIRE- preliminary examination of
witnesses for the purpose of establishing
whether or not a witness really is qualified as
such. (Likewise done in examination of a child
witness, but it is only the judge who can ask
questions, plaintiff and defendant can write
their questions and give it to the judge)
Note: Ordinary witnesses are not allowed to be
examined in a narrative form, except a child
witness.
A. Examination of Witnesses
1. How done – Rule 132, Sec. 1
open court
under oath or affirmation
- Mode of answering
General Rule: oral
Exception:
o Witness is incapacitated to speak or
o Question calls for a different mode
of answer
2. Rights and Obligations – Rule 132, Sec. 3
Obligation of a witness: answer questions,
although his answer may tend to establish a
claim against him.
Rights of a witness:
2.1 To be protected from irrelevant, improper,
or insulting questions, and from harsh or
insulting demeanor;
2.2 Not to be detained longer than the interests
of justice require;
2.3 Not to be examined except only as to
matters pertinent to the issue;
2.4 Not to give an answer which will tend to
subject him to a penalty for an offense unless
otherwise provided by law; or
2.5 Not to give an answer which will tend to
degrade his reputation, unless it to be the very
fact at issue or to a fact from which the fact in
issue would be presumed. But a witness must
answer to the fact of his previous final
 hlp©2009 Page 34
conviction for an offense.
Case: Supposing a witness refused to answer
because he feels the question is incriminatory.
However, the court directs the witness to give
an answer and the witness obeys the order of
the court. Later on the answer turns out to be
incriminatory and later on the witness was
indicted for the commission of this offense, can
his testimony in court be given in evidence
against him in the form of an admission?
NO, because the witnsess has initially
objected and he gave the answer only in
compliance with an order of the court.
According to some decisions that could be
treated as a compelled testimony given under
duress and therefore could not be used against
the witness.
EXCEPTIONS TO RULE AGAINST SELF-
INCRIMINATION
1. Use Immunity- the witness will still be
indicted for the commission of an offense, but
the statements given by the witness cannot be
used against him. He is not immunized from
prosecution.
2. Transactional Immunity- There is absolute
immunity, both to prosecution and use of the
statements given by the witness.
3. Order in the Examination – Rule 132,
Sec. 4
3.1 Direct Examination – Rule 132, Sec. 5
- Examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
presenting him on the facts relevant to the
issue.
3.2 Cross-Examination – Rule 132, Sec. 6
- When conducted: upon termination of direct
examination
- Matters covered: witness may be cross-
examined by the adverse party as to –
= Any matters stated in the direct examination,
or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness
and freedom to test his accuracy and
truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias,
or the reverse, and
= To elicit all important facts bearing upon the
issue.
Implied waiver of cross-examination – The
party was given the opportunity Dela Paz vs.
IAC (1987)
TWO RULES ON LIMITS OF CROSS
EXAMINATION
1. English Rule- where a witness is called to
3/16/201834
testify to a particular fact, he becomes a
witness for all purposes and may be fully cross-
examined upon all matters material to the
issue, the examination not being confined to
the matters inquired about in the direct
examination.
2. American Rule- restricts cross-examination
to facts and circumstances which are connected
with the matters that have been stated in the
direct examination of the witness. (applies
when witness is the accused in a criminal case;
and when witness is hostile or adverse party
witness)
3.3 Re-direct Examination – Rule 132, Sec. 7
- When conducted: after the cross-examination
of the witness has been concluded
- Why conducted: to explain or supplement his
answers given during the cross-examination.
On re-direct-examination, the court in its
discretion may allow questions on matters not
dealt with during the cross-examination.
3.4 Re-cross Examination – Rule 132, Sec. 8
- Adverse party may re-cross-examine the
witness on matters stated in his re-direct
examination, and also on such other matters as
may be allowed by the court in its discretion,
upon the conclusion of the re-direct
examination.
4. Recalling Witnesses – Rule 132, Sec. 9
- After the examination of a witness has been
concluded by both sides has been concluded,
the witness cannot be recalled without leave of
court. The court will grant or withhold leave in
its discretion as the interests of justice may
require.
There must be a satisfactory showing of
some concrete, substantial ground (i.e.
particularly identified material points were not
covered in the cross-examination; particularly
described vital documents were not presented
to the witness; the cross-examination was
conducted in so inept a manner as to result in a
virtual absence thereof. (People vs. Rivera,
1991)
5. Leading and Misleading Questions –
Rule 132, Sec. 10
Leading questions
 Questions that suggest to the witness the
answer, which the examining party desires,
are leading questions.
 General Rule: Not allowed
 Exceptions:
 hlp©2009 Page 35
1. On cross examination;
2. On preliminary matters;
3. When there is a difficulty is getting
direct and intelligible answers from a
witness who is ignorant, or a child of
tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a
deaf-mute;
4. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
o A witness may be considered as
unwilling or hostile only if so
declared by the court upon
adequate showing of his -
 adverse interest,
 unjustified reluctance to testify,
or
 his having misled the party into
calling him to the witness stand.
6. Of a witness who is an adverse party or
an officer, director, or managing agent
of a public or private corporation or of a
partnership or association which is an
adverse party.
 When the answer is derived from a
leading question the evidence has no
probative value at all even if there is no
objection to a leading question.
Misleading questions
1 Those that assume as true a fact not yet
testified to by the witness, or contrary to
that which he has previously stated.
2 Not allowed.
DOCTRINE OF INCOMPLETE TESTIMONY:
When cross examination cannot be done or
completed due to causes attributable to the
party who offered the witness, the incomplete
testimony is rendered incompetent and should
be stricken from the record. Except: where the
prosecution witness was extensively cross-
examined on the material points and thereafter
failed to appear and cannot be produced despite
a warrant for his arrest. (People v. GOrospe, GR
51513, May 15, 1984)
Scope of judge’s participation at trial : A
judge who presides at a trial is not a mere
referee. He must actively participate therein by
directing counsel to the facts in dispute, by
asking clarifying questions, and by showing an
interest in a fast a fair trial. (Clarin v. Yatco, 56
O.G. 7042, Nov. 14, 1960)
He can interrogate witnesses to elicit
the truth, to obtain clarification, or to test their
credibility. (People v Moreno, 83 Phil. 286)
3/16/201835
However, this power must be exercised
by the court sparingly and judiciously. (People
v. Ferrer, 44 O.G. 112). Of course, the judge
cannot curtail counsel's right to interrogate
witnesses. (People v. Bedia, 83 Phil. 909)
There is no prohibition against the
judge conducting the examination of the
witness. The counsel may object to the
questions propounded by the judge.
Power of court to stop further evidence:
1) The court may stop
2) the introduction of further testimony
3) upon any particular point
4) when the evidence upon it is already so full
5) that more witnesses to the same point
6) cannot be reasonably expected
7) to be additionally persuasive.
But this power should be exercised with
caution. When the evidence already presented
on one point is sufficient and the party merely
seeks to present cumulative evidence which
cannot produce additional persuasive effect or
that he is not sure of what the other witnesses
would testify, the court may in its sound
discretion stop the introduction of such further
evidence. (People v. Reyes, et al., 133 SCRA
51)
Role of attorney during presentation of
evidence: An attorney has a dual role to
perform relative to proving the truth respecting
a matter of fact.
He must ensure that all evidence supporting
the material allegations, whether raised in the
pleadings or not are admitted by the court. His
other role is to block the admission of evidence
supporting his opponents' material allegations
whether raised in the pleadings or not.
In order to perform this dual role the
attorney should ensure that the evidence he
offers are admissible in accordance with the
Rules of Court and those of his opponent are
properly objected to for being inadmissible
6. Impeachment of Witnesses
6.1. Impeachment of Adverse Party’s
Witness – Rule 132, Sec. 11
- How done:
by contradictory evidence;
by evidence that his general reputation for
truth, honesty or integrity is bad; or
by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present
testimony.
 hlp©2009 Page 36
- Evidence of particular wrongful acts is not
allowed except that it may be shown by the
examination of the witness, or the record of the
judgment, that he has been convicted of an
offense.
6.2. Impeachment of Own Witness – Rule
132, Sec. 12
- General Rule: The party producing a witness
is not allowed to impeach the latter’s credibility.
- Exception: The witness is an unwilling or
hostile witness.
= A witness may be considered as
unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the
court upon adequate showing of his -
 adverse interest,
 unjustified reluctance to testify,
or -
 his having misled the party into
calling him to the witness stand.
- The impeachment may be made by the party
presenting the hostile or unwilling witness in all
respects as if he had been called by the adverse
party, except by evidence of bad character. He
may also be impeached and cross-examined by
the adverse party, but such cross-examination
must only be on the subject matter of his
examination-in-chief.
6.3. Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent
Statements – Rule 132, Sec. 13
- Before a witness can be impeached by
evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present
testimony: the statements must be related to
him, with the circumstances of the times and
places and the persons present, and he must be
asked whether he made such statements, and if
so, be allowed to explain them; if the
statements be in writing they must be shown to
the witness before any question is put to him
concerning them (laying the predicate).
Laying the foundation or laying the basis-
refers to a situation where an evidence which is
otherwise incompetent will be introduced in
evidence because it falls under the exceptions
to that rule on exclusion.
Example: If a party desires to introduce
secondary or substitutionary evidence he must
first lay the foundation or lay the basis. He
must first proved that there was a writing duly
executed and that the original has been lost or
destroyed.
3/16/201836
7. Exclusion and Separation of Witnesses
– Rule 132, Sec. 14
- The judge may exclude from the court any
witness not at the time under examination, so
that he may not hear the testimony of other
witnesses. The judge may also have the
witnesses separated and prevented from
conversing with each other until all have been
examined.
8. Refreshing Recollection of Witnesses –
Rule 132, Sec. 16
8.1 Revival of Present Memory
- A witness may be allowed to refresh his
memory respecting a fact, by anything written
or recorded by himself or under his direction at
the time when the fact occurred, or
immediately thereafter, or at any other time
when the fact was fresh in his memory and
knew that the same was correctly written or
recorded,
- BUT in such case the writing or record must
be produced and may be inspected by the
adverse party, who may, if he chooses, cross
examine the witness upon it, and may read it in
evidence.
Note: The memorandum is not evidence, it is
still the testimony
8.2 Past Recollection Recorded
- A witness may testify from such writing or
record, (as in the case in revival of present
memory) though he retain no recollection of the
particular facts, if he is able to swear that the
writing or record correctly stated the
transaction when made; but such evidence
must be received with caution.
Note: It is the memorandum that will serve as
evidence (documentary evidence)
What is the consequence of giving in evidence a
part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing
or record? (Rule 132, Section 17) [RULE OF
COMPLETENESS]
- The whole of the same subject may be
inquired into by the other, and when a detached
act, declaration, conversation, writing or record
is given in evidence, any other act, declaration,
conversation, writing or record necessary to its
understanding may also be given in evidence.
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
Applicability of the Rule. — Unless otherwise
 hlp©2009 Page 37 3/16/201837

provided, this Rule shall govern the judge, counsel for the parties,
examination of child witnesses who are victims however, can submit questions
of crime, accused of a crime, and witnesses to to the judge that he may, in his
crime. It shall apply in all criminal proceedings discretion, ask the child. (ß6(d))
and non-criminal proceedings involving child - Questions asked: appropriate to
witnesses. (ß1) the age and developmental
level of the child; shall not be
Child witness related to the issues at trial;
I. Definition (ß4(a)) and shall focus on the ability of
Any person who at the time of giving the child to remember,
testimony is < 18 years. communicate, distinguish
In child abuse cases: a child includes one between truth and falsehood,
over eighteen (18) years but is found by and appreciate the duty to
the court as unable to fully take care of testify truthfully. (ß6(e))
himself or protect himself from abuse, - The court has the duty of
neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or continuously assessing the
discrimination because of a physical or competence of the child
mental disability or condition. throughout his testimony.
II. Competency of a Child Witness: Every child (ß6(f))
is presumed qualified to be a witness. To
rebut the presumption of competence III. Testifying
enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies A. Oath: Before testifying, a child shall
on the party challenging his competence. take an oath or affirmation to tell the
(ßß6, 6(b)) truth. (ß7)
Competency exam B. Examination
A. When conducted- 1. How conducted –
- Motu proprio or on motion of a General Rule: open court, unless the
party, when it finds that witness is incapacitated to speak, or the
substantial doubt exists question calls for a different mode of
regarding the ability of the child answer, the answers of the witness shall
to perceive, remember, be given orally. (ß8)
communicate, distinguish truth Exception/s:
from falsehood, or appreciate a) Exclusion of the public –
the duty to tell the truth in - Why made:
court. (ß6)  To protect the right to
- A party seeking a competency privacy of the child or
examination must present proof  If the court determines on
of necessity of competency the record that requiring the
examination. The age of the child to testify in open court
child by itself is not a sufficient would cause psychological
basis for a competency harm to him, hinder the
examination. (ß6(a)) ascertainment of truth, or
B. Who are allowed to attend- result in his inability to
- The judge and necessary court effectively communicate
personnel; due to embarrassment,
- The counsel for the parties; fear, or timidity.
- The guardian ad litem; - In making its order, the court
- Support person/s for the child; shall consider the
and developmental level of the child,
- The defendant, unless the court the nature of the crime, the
determines that competence nature of his testimony
can be fully evaluated in his regarding the crime, his
absence. relationship to the accused and
(ß6(c)) to persons attending the trial,
C. How conducted- his desires, and the interests of
- By whom conducted: by the his parents or legal guardian.
hlp©2009
- The court may, motu proprio,
exclude the public from the
courtroom if the evidence to be
produced during trial is of such
character as to be offensive to
decency or public morals.
- The court may also, on motion
of the accused, exclude the
public from trial, except court
personnel and the counsel of
the parties.
(ß23)
b) The court may order that persons
attending the trial shall not enter or
leave the courtroom during the
testimony of the child. (ß24)
c) Motion by party who presents a
child witness or the guardian ad
litem of such child witness may,
however, move the court to allow
him to testify in the manner
provided in this Rule (ß8):
i. Live-link television testimony in
criminal cases where the child
is a victim or a witness. (ß25)
Who may apply for an order
that testimony of the child be
taken in a room outside the
courtroom and be televised to
the courtroom by live-link
television:
1 prosecutor,
2 counsel or the
3 guardian ad litem
Period for application: The
person seeking such an order
shall apply at least five (5) days
before the trial date, unless the
court finds on the record that
the need for such an order was
not reasonably foreseeable.
Hearing on the application:
The court may motu proprio
hear and determine, with notice
to the parties, the need for
taking the testimony of the child
through live-link television.
The judge may question the
child in chambers, or in some
comfortable place other than
the courtroom, in the presence
of the support person, guardian
ad litem, prosecutor, and
Page 38 3/16/201838
counsel for the parties. The
questions of the judge shall not
be related to the issues at trial
but to the feelings of the child
about testifying in the
courtroom.
The judge may exclude any
person, including the accused,
whose presence or conduct
causes fear to the child.
Order denying/granting use of
live-link TV:
The court shall issue an order
granting or denying the use of
live-link television and stating
the reasons therefor.
Factors considered by the court
in granting/denying application:
(1)†The age and level
of development of the child;
(2)†His physical and
mental health, including any
mental or physical
disability;
(3)†Any physical,
emotional, or psychological
injury experienced by him;
(4)†The nature of the
alleged abuse;
(5)†Any threats
against the child;
(6)†His relationship
with the accused or adverse
party;
(7)†His reaction to any
prior encounters with the
accused in court or
elsewhere;
(8)†His reaction prior to
trial when the topic of
testifying was discussed
with him by parents or
professionals;
(9)†Specific symptoms
of stress exhibited by the
child in the days prior to
testifying;
(10)†Testimony of
expert or lay witnesses;
(11)†The custodial
situation of the child and
the attitude of the members
hlp©2009 Page 39 3/16/201839

of his family regarding the - If it is necessary for the

events about which he will child to identify the accused
testify; and at trial, the court may allow
(12)†Other relevant the child to enter the
factors, such as court courtroom for the limited
atmosphere and formalities purpose of identifying the
of court procedure. accused, or the court may
allow the child to identify
The court may order that the
the accused by observing
testimony of the child be taken
the image of the latter on a
by live-link television if there is
television monitor.
a substantial likelihood that the
- The court may set other
child would suffer trauma from
conditions and limitations
testifying in the presence of the
on the taking of the
accused, his counsel or the
testimony that it finds just
prosecutor as the case may be.
and appropriate, taking into
The trauma must be of a kind
consideration the best
which would impair the
interests of the child.
completeness or truthfulness of
- The testimony of the child
the testimony of the child.
shall be preserved on
videotape, digital disc, or
How done: other similar devices which
shall be made part of the
where testimony is taken: in a court record and shall be
room separate from the subject to a protective order
courtroom as provided in section
who are present: 31(b).
o guardian ad litem;
o one or both of his ii. Screens, one-way mirrors, and
support persons; other devices to shield child
o the facilitator from accused. (ß26)
o and interpreter, if any; Who may apply for an order
o a court officer appointed that the chair of the child or
by the court; that a screen or other device be
o persons necessary to placed in the courtroom in such
operate the closed- a manner that the child cannot
circuit television see the accused while
equipment; and testifying:
o other persons whose 1 prosecutor or
presence are 2 guardian ad litem
determined by the court (consultation with
to be necessary to the prosecutor or counsel as in
welfare and well-being application for use of live-
of the child; link TV. also required)
- The judge, prosecutor,
accused, and counsel for Order granting application:
the parties shall be in the The court shall issue an order
courtroom. The testimony stating the reasons and
of the child shall be describing the approved
transmitted by live-link courtroom arrangement
television into the
courtroom for viewing and If the court grants an
hearing by the judge, application to shield the child
prosecutor, counsel for the from the accused while
parties, accused, victim, testifying in the courtroom, the
and the public unless courtroom shall be arranged to
excluded.
hlp©2009 Page 40
enable the accused to view the
child.
iii. Videotaped deposition.
(ß27)
Who may apply for an order that
a deposition be taken of the
testimony of the child and that it
be recorded and preserved on
videotape?
1 prosecutor,
2 counsel, or
3 guardian ad litem
(consultation with prosecutor
or counsel as in application
for use of live-link TV. also
required)
When allowed:†If the court finds
that the child will not be able to
testify in open court at trial, it
shall issue an order that the
deposition of the child be taken
and preserved by videotape.
Deposition-taking:
Who are present
o Judge – who shall preside
at the videotaped
deposition of a child;
o Prosecutor;
o defense counsel;
o Guardian ad litem;
o Accused, provided that, if
the order of the court is
based on evidence that
the child is unable to
testify in the physical
presence of the accused,
the court may direct the
latter to be excluded from
the room in which the
deposition is conducted.
In case of exclusion of the
accused, the court shall
order that the testimony
of the child be taken by
live-link television in
accordance with section
25 of this Rule. If the
accused is excluded from
the deposition, it is not
necessary that the child
3/16/201840
be able to view an image
of the accused.
o Other persons whose
presence is determined by
the court to be necessary
to the welfare and well-
being of the child;
o Support person/s, the
facilitator and interpreter,
if any;
o Court stenographer; and
o †Persons necessary to
operate the videotape
equipment.
Objections to testimony or
evidence; rights of the
accused
o Objections to deposition
testimony or evidence, or
parts thereof, and the
grounds for the objection
shall be stated and shall
be ruled upon at the time
of the taking of the
deposition.
o The rights of the accused
during trial, especially the
right to counsel and to
confront and cross-
examine the child, shall
not be violated during the
deposition.
The videotaped deposition shall
be preserved and stenographically
recorded. The videotape and the
stenographic notes shall be
transmitted to the clerk of the
court where the case is pending
for safekeeping and shall be made
a part of the record.
The court may set other
conditions on the taking of the
deposition that it finds just and
appropriate, taking into
consideration the best interests of
the child, the constitutional rights
of the accused, and other relevant
factors.
The videotaped deposition and
stenographic notes shall be
subject to a protective order as
hlp©2009 Page 41 3/16/201841

provided in section 31(b). of the child.

If, at the time of trial, the court  An interpreter shall take
finds that the child is unable to an oath or affirmation to
testify for a reason stated in make a true and accurate
section 25(f) of this Rule, or is interpretation.
unavailable for any reason
b. Facilitator to pose questions
described in section 4(c), Rule 23
to child (ß10)
of the 1997 Rules of Civil
How appointed: The court
Procedure, the court may admit
motu proprio or upon
into evidence the videotaped
motion,
deposition of the child in lieu of
When appointed: child is
his testimony at the trial. The
unable to understand or
court shall issue an order stating
respond to questions asked.
the reasons therefor.
Who may be a facilitator:
After the original videotaping but The facilitator may be a
before or during trial, any party child psychologist,
may file any motion for additional psychiatrist, social worker,
videotaping on the ground of guidance counselor,
newly discovered evidence. The teacher, religious leader,
court may order an additional parent, or relative. The
videotaped deposition to receive facilitator shall take an oath
the newly discovered evidence. or affirmation to pose
questions to the child
When conducted: The court may order
according to the meaning
that the testimony of the child should
intended by counsel.
be taken during a time of day when the
Function of facilitator:†
child is well-rested. (ß14)
Respective counsels for the
parties shall pose questions
Provisions for ease of child in
to the child only through the
testifying/accommodations for a child
facilitator. The questions
a. Interpreter for child (ß9)
shall either be in the words
How appointed: the court
used by counsel or, if the
motu proprio or upon
child is not likely to
motion
understand the same, in
When appointed:†When a words that are
child does not understand comprehensible to the child
the English or Filipino and which convey the
language or is unable to meaning intended by
communicate in said counsel.
languages due to his c. Support persons (ß11)
developmental level, fear, A child testifying at a
shyness, disability, or other judicial proceeding or
similar reason making a deposition shall
have the right to be
Who may be interpreter? accompanied by one or two
†If a witness or member persons of his own choosing
of the family of the child is to provide him emotional
the only person who can support.
serve as an interpreter for (1)†Both
the child, he shall not be support persons shall
disqualified and may serve remain within the view
as the interpreter of the of the child during his
child. The interpreter, testimony.
however, who is also a (2)†One of the
witness, shall testify ahead support persons may
hlp©2009 Page 42 3/16/201842

accompany the child to support persons, guardian ad

the witness stand, litem, facilitator, and court
provided the support personnel.
person does not
completely obscure the The child may be allowed to
child from the view of testify from a place other than
the opposing party, the witness chair.
judge, or hearing
officer. The witness chair or other place
(3)†The court from which the child testifies
may allow the support may be turned to facilitate his
person to hold the hand testimony but the opposing
of the child or take party and his counsel must
other appropriate steps have a frontal or profile view of
to provide emotional the child during the testimony
support to the child in of the child. The witness chair
the course of the or other place from which the
proceedings. child testifies may also be
(4)†The court shall rearranged to allow the child to
instruct the support see the opposing party and his
persons not to prompt, counsel, if he chooses to look at
sway, or influence the them, without turning his body
child during his or leaving the witness stand.
testimony.
The judge need not wear his
Support person, also a
judicial robe.
witness
Nothing in this section or any
1 Disapproved if  it is
other provision of law, except
sufficiently established
official in-court identification
that the attendance of
provisions, shall be construed to
the support person
require a child to look at the
during the testimony of
accused.
the child would pose a
substantial risk of
Accommodations for the child
influencing or affecting
under this section need not be
the content of the
supported by a finding of
testimony of the
trauma to the child.
child.†
2 If allowed  his
f. Recess during testimony
testimony shall be
(ß15)
presented ahead of the
 The child may be
testimony of the child.
allowed reasonable periods
d. Waiting area for child
of relief while undergoing
witnesses (ß12) that is
direct, cross, re-direct, and
separate from waiting areas
re-cross examinations as
used by other persons.
often as necessary
e. Courtroom environment
depending on his
(ß13)
developmental level.
g. Testimonial aids (ß16): use
Aim: create a more comfortable
of dolls, anatomically-
environment for the child
correct dolls, puppets,
court may, in its discretion,
drawings, mannequins, or
direct and supervise the
any other appropriate
location, movement and
demonstrative device to
deportment of all persons in the
assist him in his testimony.
courtroom including the parties,
h. Emotional security item
their counsel, child, witnesses,
hlp©2009 Page 43 3/16/201843

(ß17): While testifying, a corroboration not required -

child shall be allowed to His testimony, if credible by
have an item of his own itself, shall be sufficient to
choosing such as a blanket, support a finding of fact,
toy, or doll conclusion, or judgment
i. Conduct in questioning the subject to the standard of
witness: proof required in criminal
i. Conduct of counsel: and non-criminal cases.
a counsel may be (ß22)
prohibited from
approaching a child IV. Questions of Admissibility
if it appears that the C. Hearsay Exception in Child
child is fearful of or Abuse Cases (ß28)
intimidated by the Where admitted: child abuse cases,
counsel. (ß18) criminal or non-criminal
ii.Mode of How admitted:
questioning: 1) Before such hearsay statement may
- The court shall be admitted, its proponent shall
exercise control over make known to the adverse party
the questioning of the intention to offer such
children so as to statement and its particulars to
(1) facilitate the provide him a fair opportunity to
ascertainment of the object.
truth, a. Child is available
(2) ensure that  The court shall, upon
questions are stated in motion of the adverse
a form appropriate to party, require the child
the developmental level to be present at the
of the child, presentation of the
(3) protect hearsay statement for
children from cross-examination by
harassment or undue the adverse party.
embarrassment, and b. Child is unavailable
(4) avoid waste  the fact of such
of time. circumstance must be
- The court may proved by the
allow the child witness proponent.
to testify in a narrative  When unavailable:
form. (1)†Is
iii. Questions and deceased, suffers from
objections thereto physical infirmity, lack
leading questions in all of memory, mental
stages of examination illness, or will be
of a child may be exposed to severe
allowed if the same will psychological injury; or
further the interests of (2)†Is absent
justice (ß20) from the hearing and
the proponent of his
Objections to questions statement has been
should be couched in a unable to procure his
manner so as not to attendance by process
mislead, confuse, or other reasonable
frighten, or intimidate means.
the child. (ß21)
†When the child
j. Weight given to testimony
witness is unavailable,
of child witness: strong;
his hearsay testimony
hlp©2009
shall be admitted only if
corroborated by other
admissible evidence.
2) In ruling on the admissibility of such
hearsay statement, the court shall
consider the time, content and
circumstances thereof which
provide sufficient indicia
reliability. It shall consider the
following factors:
c. Whether there is a motive
to lie;
d. The general character of the
declarant child;
e. Whether more than one
person heard the
statement;
f. Whether the statement was
spontaneous;
g. The timing of the statement
and the relationship
between the declarant child
and witness;
h. Cross-examination could not
show the lack of knowledge
of the declarant child;
i. The possibility of faulty
recollection of the declarant
child is remote; and
j. The circumstances
surrounding the statement
are such that there is no
reason to suppose the
declarant child
misrepresented the
involvement of the accused.
D. Videotaped and audiotaped in-depth
investigative or disclosure
interviews in child abuse cases
(ß29)
When admissible:
1 The child witness -
(1)†Is deceased, suffers from
physical infirmity, lack of
memory, mental illness, or will
be exposed to severe
psychological injury; or
(2)†Is absent from the hearing
and the proponent of his
statement has been unable to
procure his attendance by
process or other reasonable
means.
Page 44 3/16/201844
2 Before the videotape or
audiotape is offered in
evidence, all parties shall be
afforded an opportunity to view
or listen to it and shall be
furnished a copy of a written
transcript of the proceedings.
of
By whom conducted:
 duly trained members of a
multidisciplinary team or
representatives of law enforcement or
child protective services in situations
where child abuse is suspected so as to
determine whether child abuse
occurred.
 individual conducting the
interview of the child shall be
available at trial for examination by
any party.
Proof of the following must be given by
party offering the videotape or
audiotape:
(1)†The videotape or audiotape
discloses the identity of all individuals
present and at all times includes their
images and voices;
(2)†The statement was not made in
response to questioning calculated to
lead the child to make a particular
statement or is clearly shown to be the
statement of the child and not the
product of improper suggestion;
(3)†The videotape and audiotape
machine or device was capable of
recording testimony;
(4)†The person operating the device
was competent to operate it;
(5)†The videotape or audiotape is
authentic and correct; and
(6)†It has been duly preserved.
Value of an investigative interview that
was not done as required in this Rule:
The fact that an investigative interview
is not videotaped or audiotaped as
required by this section shall not by
itself constitute a basis to exclude from
evidence out-of-court statements or
testimony of the child. It may,
however, be considered in determining
the reliability of the statements of the
child describing abuse.
E. Sexual abuse shield rule
Inadmissible evidence in any
criminal proceeding involving
 hlp©2009 Page 45
alleged child sexual abuse:
(1) Evidence offered to prove that
the alleged victim engaged in other
sexual behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the
sexual predisposition of the alleged
victim.
When admissible: Evidence of
specific instances of sexual
behavior by the alleged victim
to prove that a person other
than the accused was the
source of semen, injury, or
G. Protective order
other physical evidence shall be
admissible.
How admitted:
1. A party intending to
offer such evidence must:
(1) File a written motion
at least 15 days before
trial, specifically describing
the evidence and stating
the purpose for which it is
offered, unless the court,
for good cause, requires a
different time for filing or
permits filing during trial;
and
(2) Serve the motion on
all parties and the
guardian ad litem at least
3 days before the hearing
of the motion.
2. Before admitting such
evidence, the court must
conduct a hearing in chambers
and afford the child, his
guardian ad litem, the parties,
and their counsel a right to
attend and be heard. The
motion and the record of the
hearing must be sealed and
remain under seal and
protected by a protective order
set forth in section 31(b). The
child shall not be required to
testify at the hearing in
chambers except with his
consent.
V. Other protective measures for the child
(ß31)
F. Confidentiality of records.
3/16/201845
When records may be released: upon
written request and order of the court
To whom may be released:
(1) Members of the court staff for
administrative use;
(2) The prosecuting attorney;
(3) Defense counsel;
(4) The guardian ad litem;
(5) Agents of investigating law
enforcement agencies; and
(6) Other persons as determined by
the court.
What are covered: Any videotape or
audiotape of a child that is part of the court
record
Provisos of the protective order:
(1) Tapes may be viewed only by
parties, their counsel, their expert witness,
and the guardian ad litem.
(2) No tape, or any portion thereof,
shall be divulged by any person mentioned
in sub-section (a) to any other person,
except as necessary for the trial.
(3) No person shall be granted
access to the tape, its transcription or any
part thereof unless he signs a written
affirmation that he has received and read
a copy of the protective order; that he
submits to the jurisdiction of the court
with respect to the protective order; and
that in case of violation thereof, he will be
subject to the contempt power of the
court.
(4) Each of the tape cassettes and
transcripts thereof made available to the
parties, their counsel, and respective
agents shall bear the following cautionary
notice:
“This object or
document and the
contents thereof are
subject to a protective
order issued by the court
in (case title), (case
number). They shall not
be examined, inspected,
read, viewed, or copied by
any person, or disclosed to
any person, except as
provided in the protective
order. No additional
 hlp©2009
copies of the tape or any
of its portion shall be
made, given, sold, or
shown to any person
without prior court order.
Any person violating such
protective order is subject
to the contempt power of
the court and other
penalties prescribed by
law.”
(5) No tape shall be given, loaned,
sold, or shown to any person except as
ordered by the court.
(6) Within 30 days from receipt, all
copies of the tape and any transcripts
thereof shall be returned to the clerk of
court for safekeeping unless the period is
extended by the court on motion of a
party.
(7) This protective order shall remain
in full force and effect until further order of
the court.
H. Additional protective orders. — The court
may, motu proprio or on motion of any
party, the child, his parents, legal guardian,
or the guardian ad litem, issue additional
orders to protect the privacy of the child.
I. Publication of identity contemptuous.
What is prohibited: Publication or causing
publication in any format the name,
address, telephone number, school, or
other identifying information of a child who
is or is alleged to be a victim or accused of
a crime or a witness thereof, or an
immediate family of the child
Liability of violator: contempt of court
J. Physical safety of child; exclusion
evidence.
A child has a right at any court proceeding
not to testify regarding personal identifying
information, including his name, address,
telephone number, school, and other
information that could endanger his
physical safety or his family.
The court may, however, require the child
to testify regarding personal identifying
information in the interest of justice.
K. Destruction of videotapes and audiotapes
produced under the provisions of this Rule
or otherwise made part of the court record
shall be destroyed after 5 years have
Page 46 3/16/201846
elapsed from the date of entry of judgment.
L. Records of youthful offender: privileged
1. Youthful offender has been charged
before any city or provincial prosecutor
or before any municipal judge and the
charges have been ordered dropped
 All the records of the case
shall be considered as privileged
and may not be disclosed
directly or indirectly to anyone
for any purpose whatsoever.
2. Youthful offender has been charged and
the court acquits him, or dismisses the
case or commits him to an institution
and subsequently releases him pursuant
to Chapter 3 of P. D. No. 603,
 All the records of his case
shall also be considered as
privileged and may not be
disclosed directly or indirectly to
anyone EXCEPT to determine if
a defendant may have his
sentence suspended under
Article 192 of P. D. No. 603 or if
he may be granted probation
under the provisions of P. D.
No. 968 or to enforce his civil
liability, if said liability has been
imposed in the criminal action.
 The youthful offender
concerned shall not be held
under any provision of law to be
guilty of perjury or of
concealment or
misrepresentation by reason of
his failure to acknowledge the
case or recite any fact related
of
thereto in response to any
inquiry made to him for any
purpose.
VI. Suppletory application of Rules of Court:
The provisions of the Rules of Court on
deposition, conditional examination of
witnesses, and evidence shall be applied in
a suppletory character. (ß32)
Authentication and Proof of Documents
1. Classes of Documents
1.1 Public Documents – Rule 132, Sec. 19
1.1.1-A Written official acts of the sovereign
 hlp©2009 Page 47
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and
public officers, whether of the Philippines or of a
foreign country;
- How Proven = Rule 132, Sec. 23
- Documents consisting of entries in public
records made in the performance of a duty by a
public officer are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated. All other public documents
are evidence, even against a third person of the
fact which gave rise to their execution and of
the date of the latter.
1.1.1-B Records of the official acts of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines or of a foreign country.
- How Proven = Rule 132, Sec. 24
- The record may be evidenced by: (1) an
official publication thereof; (2) a copy attested
by the officer having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if
the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a
certificate that such officer has the custody.
If the record is in a foreign country, the
certificate may be made by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul-general, consul,
vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer
in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the
record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of
his office.
*Contents of Attestation = Rule 132, Sec 25
- The attestation must state that the copy is a
correct copy of the original or a specific part
thereof, as the case may be. The attestation
must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a
court having a seal, under the seal of such
court.
- Irremovability of Record = Rule 132, Sec.
26
- Any public record, an official copy of which is
admissible in evidence, must not be removed
from the office in which it is kept, except upon
order of a court where the inspection of the
record is essential to the just determination of a
pending case.
1.1.2 Notarial Documents except last wills and
testaments;
- How Proven = Rule 132, Sec. 30
- Notarial documents may be presented in
evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of
3/16/201847
the execution of the instrument or document
involved.
1.1.3 Public Records (kept in the Philippines) of
Private Documents required by law to be
entered therein
- How Proven = Sec. 27
- Such may be proved by the original record, or
a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian
of the record, with an appropriate certificate
that such officer has the custody.
- Proof of Lack of Record = Sec. 28
A written statement signed by an officer having
the custody of an official record or by his
deputy that after diligent search, no record or
entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the
records of his office, accompanied by a
certificate that such officer has the custody, is
admissible to prove that the records of his office
contain no such record or entry.
1.2 Private Documents
- How Proven = Rule 132, Sec. 20
Before any private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved
either: (1) by anyone who say the document
executed or written; or (2) by evidence of the
genuineness of the signature or handwriting of
the maker. Any other private document need
only be identified as that which it is claimed to
be.
- Ancient Document Rule = Rule 132, Sec.
21
Requisites: (1) The private document is more
than 30 years old; (2) It is produced from a
custody in which it would naturally be found if
genuine; (3) It is unblemished by any
alterations or circumstances of suspicion.
If all requisites have been met, no other
evidence of its authenticity is required.
1. How Genuineness of Handwriting is
Proven = Rule 132, Sec. 22
It may be proved by any witness who believes
it to be the handwriting of such person because
he has seen the person write, or has seen
writing purporting to be his upon which the
witness has acted or been charged, and has
thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of
such person.
Evidence respecting the handwriting may also
be given by a comparison made by the witness
or the court, with writings admitted or treated
as genuine by the party against whom the
 hlp©2009
evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to
the satisfaction of the judge.
2. Impeachment of Judicial Record – Rule
132, Sec. 29
How done – By evidence of (a) want of
jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer; (b)
collusion between the parties; or (c) fraud in
the party offering the record, in respect to the
proceedings.
3. Alterations – Rule 132, Sec. 31
- The party producing a document as genuine,
which has been altered and appears to have
been altered after its execution, in a part
material to the question in dispute, must
account for the alteration. Failure to do so
would result in the inadmissibility of evidence.
- He may show that the alteration was made
f) by another,
g) without his concurrence, or
h) made with the consent of the parties
affected by it, or
i) was otherwise properly or innocent made,
or
j) The alteration did not change the meaning
or language of the instrument.
Seal – Rule 132, Sec. 32
- There shall be no difference between sealed
and unsealed private documents insofar as their
admissibility as evidence is concerned.
Documents Written in an Unofficial
Language – Rule 132, Sec.33
- Not admissible unless accompanied with a
translation into English or Filipino; parties or
their attorneys are directed to have such
translation prepared before trial.
IS THERE ANY WAY TO AVOID THE
TEDIOUS PROCESS OF AUTHENTICATION?
1. Rule on actionable documents (Rule 8). It
provides that if an actionable document is the
basis of a complaint of an answer, the law
requires that it should be annexed to the
pleading or that the contents thereof be copied
in verbatim. If there is failure to specifically
deny under oath the genuineness and due
execution of an actionable document that
judicial admission will take the place of
authentication
2. Mode of discovery- Request for admission of
the genuineness and due execution of a private
writing. Failure to object within 15 days,
deemed admitted.
3. Pre-trial of civil and criminal case wherein
parties may enter into stipulations, where they
Page 48 3/16/201848
will admit the genuineness and due execution of
the private writing.
Offer and Objection
1. Offer of Evidence – Rule 132, Sec, 34
1 Why made?
- For evidence to be considered by the court -
court shall consider no evidence, which has not
been formally offered.
1.1 When to make offer – Rule 132, Sec. 35
- Testimonial Evidence = at the time the
witness is called to testify.
- Documentary Evidence = after the
presentation of a party’s testimonial evidence;
offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the
court to be done in writing.
When evidence admitted even if not
formally offered:
1. The same must have been duly identified by
testimony duly recorded
2. The same must have been incorporated to
the records of the case (Mata Vda. De Onate
vs. CA)
STAGES in the presentation of
documentary evidence
1. Identification- proof that the document being
offered is the same one referred to by the
witness in his testimony
2. Marking
3. Authentication- proof of document’s due
execution and genuineness
4. Inspection
5. Formal Offer
6. Objections
2. Objection - Rule 132, Sec. 36
- Testimonial Evidence = must be objected to
immediately after the offer is made.
= Objection to a question propounded in the
course of the oral examination of a witness
shall be made as soon as the grounds therefore
shall become reasonably apparent.
- Documentary Evidence = shall be objected to
within 3 days after notice of the offer unless a
different period is allowed by the court.
Kinds of Objection
1. General or broadside- does not go beyond
declaring the evidence as immaterial,
incompetent, irrelevant, or inadmissible. Does
not specify the grounds
2. Specific- States the ground
 hlp©2009 Page 49
- When repetition is unnecessary – Rule
132, Sec. 37 (Rule on Continuing
Objection)
It shall not be necessary to repeat the objection
when it becomes reasonably apparent in the
course of the examination of a witness that the
questions being propounded are of the same
class as those to which objection has been
made, whether such objection was sustained or
overruled. It shall be sufficient for the adverse
party to record his continuing objection to such
class of questions.
- Ruling – Rule 132, Sec. 38
= 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.
= The reason for sustaining or overruling an
objection need not be stated. However, if the
objection is based on two or more grounds, a
ruling sustaining the objection on one or some
of them must specify the ground or grounds
relied upon.
3. Motion to Strike – Rule 132, Sec. 39
- The court may sustain an objection and order
the answer given to be stricken off the record
should a witness answer the question before
the adverse party had the opportunity to voice
fully its objection and such objection is found to
be meritorious.
- The court may also, upon proper motion,
order the striking out of answers, which are
incompetent, irrelevant or otherwise improper.
4. Tender of Excluded Evidence – Rule 132,
Sec. 40
- Documentary evidence – the offeror may have
the same attached or made part of the record.
- Testimonial evidence – the offeror may state
for the record the name and other personal
circumstances of the witness and the substance
of the proposed testimony.
There is a distinction between
identification of documentary evidence and its
formal offer as an exhibit. The former is done
in the course of the trial and is accompanied by
the marking of the evidence while the latter is
done only when the party rests his/her case.
That a document has been identified does not
mean that it will be offered. (Interpacific Transit
3/16/201849
vs. Aviles, 1990)
While there was no offer of the
testimony, petitioner waived this defect by
failing to object when the ground became
reasonably apparent the moment private
respondent was called to testify without any
prior offer having been made. (Catuira vs. CA,
1994)
The rule requiring that there must be a
formal offer of evidence before the evidence
can be considered may be relaxed provided the
evidence must have duly identified by
testimony duly recorded and they must have
been incorporated in the records of the case.
(Vda. De OÒate vs. CA, 1995)
OFFER OF PROOF/TENDER OF EXCLUDED
EVIDENCE vs. OFFER OF EVIDENCE
First, is only resorted to if admission is refused
by the court for purposes of review on appeal.
Second, refers to testimonial, documentary or
object evidence that are presented or offered in
court by a party so that the court can consider
his evidence when it comes to the preparation
of the decision.
VIII. Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
A. Required Quantum of Evidence
1. Preponderance of Evidence (Civil
Cases) – Rule 133, Sec. 1
- How determined? The court may consider:
= All the facts and circumstances of the case;
= The witnesses’ manner of testifying;
= Their intelligence;
= Their means and opportunity of knowing the
facts to which they testify;
= The probability or improbability of their
testimony;
= Their interest or want of interest;
= Personal credibility so far as the same may
legitimately appear upon the trial;
= Number of witnesses (note preponderance
that is not necessarily equated with the no. of
witnesses)
2. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
(Criminal Cases) – Rule
133, Sec. 2
- What is proof beyond reasonable doubt?
= That degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
= Absolute certainty is not required, only moral
certainty.
3. Substantial Evidence
(Administrative/Quasi-
 hlp©2009
Judicial Cases) – Rule133,
Sec. 5
- What is substantial evidence? The amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.
B. Extrajudicial Confessions – Rule 133,
Sec. 3
- An extrajudicial confession made by an
accused, is not a sufficient ground for
conviction UNLESS corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti.
C. Circumstantial Evidence – Rule 133,
Sec. 4
- Requisites for circumstantial evidence to be
sufficient for conviction:
a. There is more than 1 circumstance;
b. The facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and
c. The combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION, THE
TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCE TEST
1. Witness’ opportunity to view the criminal
act at the time of the crime
2. Witness’ degree of attention at that time
3. The accuracy of any prior description given
by the witness
4. The level of certainty demonstrated by the
witness at the identification
5. The length of time between the crime and
the identification
6. The suggestiveness of the identification
procedure
res ipsa loquitur (The thing speaks for
itself)- A procedural device which presumes
that the person is negligent, when he is in
control of an instrumentality causing an injury
in the absence of some explanation by him.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (False in
one thing, false in everything)- If the
testimony of the witness on a material issue is
willfully false and given with an intention to
deceive, court may disregard all the witness’
testimony. (Not a mandatory rule of evidence)
- It deals only with the weight of
evidence and not a positive rule of law
- The witnesses’ false or exaggerated
statements on other matters shall not
preclude the acceptance of such
Page 50 3/16/201850
evidence as is relieved from any sign of
falsehood
- The court may accept and reject
portions of the witness’ testimony
depending on the inherent credibility
thereof.
*May the court stop the introduction of further
testimony? YES upon any particular point when
the evidence upon it is already so full that more
witnesses to the same point cannot be
reasonably expected to be additionally
persuasive; this power should be exercised with
caution. (Rule 133, Section 6)
*How will the court dispose of a motion which is
based on facts not appearing of record? Court
may hear the matter on
- Affidavits or
- Depositions
presented by the respective parties but the
court may direct that the matter be heard
wholly or partly on oral testimony or
depositions. (Rule 133, Section 7)
Examples of motion which need hearing hence
the presentation of evidence:
CRIMINAL CASES:
Motion for bail (Under Criminal
Procedure, the evidence taken up during the
hearing of the motion will form part
automatically of the records of the case, so
there is no need to repeat in the trial what have
been covered in the hearing of the motion)
CIVIL CASES:
Application for preliminary
attachment/injunction
Motion to dismiss founded on certain
facts which are not solely predicated on
absence of jurisdiction or failure to state a COA,
i.e. it is predicated on the ground of payment
(Same with Criminal Case, evidence taken up
during hearing made part automatically of
records of the case)
Rules on Electronic Evidence
Scope
Unless otherwise provided herein, these Rules
shall apply whenever an electronic document or
electronic data message (R1, ß1)
Cases covered.
All civil actions and proceedings, as well as
quasi-judicial and administrative cases. (R1,
 hlp©2009
ß2)
Electronic data message
Information generated, sent, received or stored
by electronic, optical or similar means. (R2,
ß1g)
Electronic Signatures (R2, ß1j)
Refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic
and/or sound in electronic form, representing
the identity of a person and attached to or
logically associated with the electronic data
message or electronic document or any
methodology or procedure employed or adopted
by a person and executed or adopted by such
person with the intention of authenticating,
signing or approving an electronic data
message or electronic document.
Includes digital signatures
o Refers to an electronic signature
consisting of a transformation of an
electronic document or an electronic
data message using an asymmetric or
public cryptosystem such that a person
having the initial untransformed
electronic document and the signer’s
public key can accurately determine:
(i) Whether the transformation was
created using the private key that
corresponds to the signer’s public
key; and,
(ii) Whether the initial electronic
document had been altered after
the transformation was made. (R2,
ß1e)
o “Digitally signed” refers to an electronic
document or electronic data message
bearing a digital signature verified by
the public key listed in a certificate.
(R2, ß1f)
Admissible in evidence as the functional
equivalent of the signature of a person on a
written document. (R6, ß1)
How authenticated? (R6, ß2)
1. By evidence that a method or process
was utilized to establish a digital
signature and verify the same;
2. By any other means provided by law; or
3. By any other means satisfactory to the
judge as establishing the genuineness
of the electronic signature.
Page 51 3/16/201851
Disputable presumptions relating to e-
signatures: (R6, ß3)
1. The electronic signature is that of the
person to whom it correlates;
2. The electronic signature was affixed by
that person with the intention of
authenticating or approving the
electronic document to which it is
related or to indicate such person’s
consent to the transaction embodied
therein; and
3. The methods or processes utilized to
affix or verify the electronic signature
operated without error or fault.
Disputable presumptions relating to digital
signatures: (R6, ß4)
1. The information contained in a
certificate is correct;
2. The digital signature was created during
the operational period of a certificate;
3. No cause exists to render a certificate
invalid or revocable;
4. The message associated with a digital
signature has not been altered from the
time it was signed; and,
5. A certificate had been issued by the
certification authority indicated therein.
Electronic document (R2, ß1h)
Information or the representation of
information, data, figures, symbols or other
modes of written expression, described or
however represented,
by which a right is established or an
obligation extinguished, or
by which a fact may be proved and
affirmed,
which is received, recorded, transmitted,
stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically.
Includes digitally signed documents and any
printout or output, readable by sight or other
means, which accurately reflects the electronic
data message or electronic document. For
purposes of these Rules, the term “electronic
document” may be used interchangeably with
“electronic data message”.
Functional equivalent of paper-based
documents. (R3, ß1)
Admissible in evidence if it complies with the
rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of
Court and related laws and is authenticated in
the manner prescribed by these Rules. (R3, ß2)
 hlp©2009
Confidential character of a privileged
communication is not lost solely on the ground
that it is in the form of an electronic document.
(R3, ß3)
BEST EVIDENCE RULE: (R4)
o An electronic document shall be
regarded as the equivalent of an
original document under the Best
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or
output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data
accurately.
o Originals And Copies:
 When copies or duplicates regarded
as originals:
1. When a document is in two or
more copies executed at or
about the same time with
identical contents, or
2. Is a counterpart produced by
the same impression as the
original, or from the same
matrix, or by mechanical or
electronic re-recording, or by
chemical reproduction, or by
other equivalent techniques that
accurately reproduces the
original.
 When copies or duplicates shall not
be admissible to the same extent as
the original:
3. If a genuine question is raised
as to the authenticity of the
original; or
4. If in the circumstances it would
be unjust or inequitable to
admit the copy in lieu of the
original.
 Authentication of Electronic Documents
(R5)
1 Burden of proving authenticity: person
seeking to introduce an electronic
document in any legal proceeding has
the burden of proving its authenticity.
2 Manner of authentication – Before any
private electronic document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its
authenticity must be proved by any of
the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been
digitally signed by the person
purported to have signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate
security procedures or devices as
Page 52 3/16/201852
may be authorized by the Supreme
Court or by law for authentication of
electronic documents were applied
to the document; or
(c) by other evidence showing its
integrity and reliability to the
satisfaction of the judge.
3 A document electronically notarized in
accordance with the rules promulgated
by the Supreme Court shall be
considered as a public document and
proved as a notarial document under
the Rules of Court.
 Evidentiary Weight Of Electronic
Documents (R7)
> Factors for assessing evidentiary weight.
(a) The reliability of the manner or method
in which it was generated, stored or
communicated, including but not limited
to input and output procedures,
controls, tests and checks for accuracy
and reliability of the electronic data
message or document, in the light of all
the circumstances as well as any
relevant agreement;
(b) The reliability of the manner in which its
originator was identified;
(c) The integrity of the information and
communication system in which it is
recorded or stored, including but not
limited to the hardware and computer
programs or software used as well as
programming errors;
(d) The familiarity of the witness or the
person who made the entry with the
communication and information system;
(e) The nature and quality of the
information which went into the
communication and information system
upon which the electronic data message
or electronic document was based; or
(f) Other factors which the court may
consider as affecting the accuracy or
integrity of the electronic document or
electronic data message.
> Integrity of an information and
communication system. – In any dispute
involving the integrity of the information and
communication system in which an electronic
document or electronic data message is
recorded or stored, the court may consider,
among others, the following factors:
(a) Whether the information and
communication system or other similar
device was operated in a manner that
 hlp©2009 Page 53
did not affect the integrity of the
electronic document, and there are no
other reasonable grounds to doubt the
integrity of the information and
communication system;
(b) Whether the electronic document was
recorded or stored by a party to the
proceedings with interest adverse to
that of the party using it; or
(c)†Whether the electronic document was
recorded or stored in the usual and
ordinary course of business by a person
who is not a party to the proceedings
and who did not act under the control of
the party using it.
Hearsay rule exception: A memorandum,
report, record or data compilation of acts,
events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses,
made by electronic, optical or other similar
means at or near the time of or from
transmission or supply of information by a
person with knowledge thereof, and kept in the
regular course or conduct of a business activity,
and such was the regular practice to make the
memorandum, report, record, or data
compilation by electronic, optical or similar
means, all of which are shown by the testimony
of the custodian or other qualified witnesses.
(R8, ß1)
This presumption may be overcome by
evidence of the untrustworthiness of the
source of information or the method or
circumstances of the preparation,
transmission or storage thereof. (R8, ß2)
How are matters relating to the
admissibility and evidentiary weight of an
electronic document established? (R9)
o by an affidavit stating facts of direct
personal knowledge of the affiant or
based on authentic records.
 The affidavit must affirmatively
show the competence of the affiant
to testify on the matters contained
therein.
 The affiant shall be made to affirm
the contents of the affidavit in open
court and may be cross-examined
as a matter of right by the adverse
party.
Examination Of Witnesses (R10)
Electronic testimony
1 After summarily hearing the parties
pursuant to Rule 9 of these Rules,
3/16/201853
the court may authorize the
presentation of testimonial evidence
by electronic means. Before so
authorizing, the court shall
determine the necessity for such
presentation and prescribe terms
and conditions as may be necessary
under the circumstances, including
the protection of the rights of the
parties and witnesses concerned.
2 When examination of a witness is
done electronically, the entire
proceedings, including the questions
and answers, shall be transcribed
by a stenographer, steno typist or
other recorder authorized for the
purpose, who shall certify as correct
the transcript done by him. The
transcript should reflect the fact
that the proceedings, either in
whole or in part, had been
electronically recorded.
3 The electronic evidence and
recording thereof as well as the
stenographic notes shall form part
of the record of the case. Such
transcript and recording shall be
deemed prima facie evidence of
such proceedings.
Ephemeral electronic communication
1 Refers to telephone conversations, text
messages, chatroom sessions, streaming
audio, streaming video, and other electronic
forms of communication the evidence of
which is not recorded or retained. (R2, ß1k)
2 Shall be proven by the testimony of a
person who was a party to the same or has
personal knowledge thereof. In the
absence or unavailability of such witnesses,
other competent evidence may be
admitted. (R11, ß2)
Audio, photographic and video evidence
(R11, ßß1-2)
Audio, photographic and video evidence of
events, acts or transactions shall be admissible
provided it shall be shown, presented or
displayed to the court and shall be identified,
explained or authenticated by the person who
made the recording or by some other person
competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
o Same rule covers a recording of the
telephone conversation or ephemeral
electronic communication shall be
covered by the immediately preceding
 hlp©2009
section.
If ephemeral, audio, photographic and video
evidence are recorded or embodied in an
electronic document, then the provisions
authentication electronic documents apply.
(R11, ß2)
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE
(a) "Biological sample" means any organic
material originating from a person's body, even
if found in inanimate objects, that is susceptible
to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva and
other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones;
(b) "DNA" means deoxyribonucleic acid, which
is the chain of molecules found in every
nucleated cell of the body. The totality of an
individual's DNA is unique for the individual,
except identical twins;
(c) "DNA evidence" constitutes the totality of
the DNA profiles, results and other genetic
information directly generated from DNA testing
of biological samples;
(d) "DNA profile" means genetic information
derived from DNA testing of a biological sample
obtained from a person, which biological sample
is clearly identifiable as originating from that
person;
(e) "DNA testing" means verified and credible
scientific methods which include the extraction
of DNA from biological samples, the generation
of DNA profiles and the comparison of the
information obtained from the DNA testing of
biological samples for the purpose of
determining, with reasonable certainty, whether
or not the DNA obtained from two or more
distinct biological samples originates from the
same person (direct identification) or if the
biological samples originate from related
persons (kinship analysis); and
(f) "Probability of Parentage" means the
numerical estimate for the likelihood of
parentage of a putative parent compared with
the probability of a random match of two
unrelated individuals in a given population.
Application for DNA Testing Order. The
appropriate court may, at any time, either motu
proprio or on application of any person who has
Page 54 3/16/201854
a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order
a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due
hearing and notice to the parties upon a
showing of the following:
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant
to the case;
(b) The biological sample:
(i) was not previously subjected to the
type of DNA testing now requested; or
(ii) was previously subjected to DNA
testing, but the results may require
confirmation for good reasons;
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid
technique;
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential
to produce new information that is relevant to
the proper resolution of the case; and chan
robles virtual law library
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which
the court may consider as potentially affecting
the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing,
without need of a prior court order, at the
behest of any party, including law enforcement
agencies, before a suit or proceeding is
commenced.
An order granting the DNA testing shall be
immediately executory and shall not be
appealable.
Petition for certiorari shall not stay the
implementation of order unless a higher court
issues an injunctive order.
Grant of a DNA testing application NOT an
automatic admission of DNA evidence.
Post-conviction DNA testing may be available,
without need of prior court order, to the
prosecution or any person convicted by final
and executory judgment provided that
(a) a biological sample exists,
(b) such sample is relevant to the case, and
(c) the testing would probably result in the
reversal or modification of the judgment of
conviction.
Factors in Assessment of probative value
of DNA evidence.
(a) The chain of custody, including how the
biological samples were collected, how they
were handled, and the possibility of
contamination of the samples;
(b) The DNA testing methodology, including
 hlp©2009 Page 55
the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, the advantages and disadvantages of
the procedure, and compliance with the
scientifically valid standards in conducting the
tests;
(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including
accreditation by any reputable standards-
setting institution and the qualification of the
analyst who conducted the tests. If the
laboratory is not accredited, the relevant
experience of the laboratory in forensic
casework and credibility shall be properly
established; and
(d) The reliability of the testing result
FACTORS in evaluating the Reliability of
DNA Testing Methodology.
(a) The falsifiability of the principles or
methods used, that is, whether the theory or
technique can be and has been tested;
(b) The subjection to peer review and
publication of the principles or methods;
(c) The general acceptance of the principles or
methods by the relevant scientific community;
(d) The existence and maintenance of
standards and controls to ensure the
correctness of data generated;
(e) The existence of an appropriate reference
population database; and
(f) The general degree of confidence attributed
to mathematical calculations used in comparing
DNA profiles and the significance and limitation
of statistical calculations used in comparing
DNA profiles.
FACTORS in Evaluation of DNA Testing
Results.
(a) The evaluation of the weight of matching
DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching
DNA evidence;
(b) The results of the DNA testing in the light
of the totality of the other evidence presented
in the case; and
(c) DNA results that exclude the putative
parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof
of non-paternity. If the value of the Probability
of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of
the DNA testing shall be considered as
corroborative evidence. If the value of the
Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher,
there shall be a disputable presumption of
paternity.
Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the
3/16/201855
Convict.
The convict or the prosecution may file a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court
of origin.
In case the court, after due hearing, finds the
petition to be meritorious, it shall reverse or
modify the judgment of conviction and order
the release of the convict, unless continued
detention is justified for a lawful cause.
A similar petition may be filed either in the
Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with
any member of said courts, which may conduct
a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the
court of origin and issue the appropriate orders.
RELEASE OF DNA results.
Through order of the court.
Shall only be released to any of the following,
under such terms and conditions as may be set
forth by the court:
(a) Person from whom the sample was taken;
(b) Lawyers representing parties in the case or
action where the DNA evidence is offered and
presented or sought to be offered and
presented;
(c) Lawyers of private complainants in a
criminal action;
(d) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies;
and
(e) Other persons as determined by the court.
Indirect Contempt- to those who publishes or
disclose the DNA results without proper court
order
Preservation of DNA Evidence. The trial
court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its
totality, including all biological samples, DNA
profiles and results or other genetic information
obtained from DNA testing. For this purpose,
the court may order the appropriate
government agency to preserve the DNA
evidence as follows:
(a) In criminal cases:
i. for not less than the period of time that any
person is under trial for an offense; or
ii. in case the accused is serving sentence, until
such time as the accused has served his
sentence; and
(b) In all other cases, until such time as the
decision in the case where the DNA evidence
 hlp©2009 Page 56 3/16/201856

was introduced has become final and executory.

chan robles virtual law library

Physical destruction of a biological sample

before the expiration of the periods set
forth above, provided that:
(a) There is a court order or
(b) The person from whom the DNA sample
was obtained has consented in writing to the
disposal of the DNA evidence.