RULE 128 FACTUM PROBANDUM distinguished from FACTUM
PROBANS:
EVIDENCE defined-
 Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a
matter of fact.
Sources of Rules of Evidence
 The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
 Rules 128 and 133 of the Revised Rules of Court
 Resolution of the Supreme Court dated March 14, 1989
approving the Proposed Rules on Evidence submitted by the
Rules of Court Revision Committee on August 31, 1987
 Rule 115, Section 1, Formerly Rule III, Section 1 of the Rules
of Court (Right of defendant at the trial);
 Substantive and Remedial Statutes;
 Judicial decisions
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE SPECIFICALLY
APPLICABLE ONLY IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
“The means of ascertaining in a JUDICIAL PROCEEDING the
truth respecting a matter of fact.”
The decision of a barrio council, respecting the settlement of
ownership and possession of a parcel of land, is ultra vires
because a barrio councils, which are not courts, have no
judicial powers. –Miguel v Catalino,20 SCRA 234
Therefore, said decision, if introduced as an exhibit is not
admissible in a judicial proceeding as evidence for ascertaining
the truth respecting a matter of fact of ownership and
possession. Supra
TRUTH IS BEST ASCERTAINED UNDER AN ADVERSARY
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. –Republic v Valencia, 141 SCRA 462
EVIDENCE distinguished from:
PROOF-
 Refers to the degree or kind of evidence which will produce full
conviction, or establish the proposition to the satisfaction of the
tribunal. Proof is the effect or result of evidence while evidence
is the medium of proof.
TESTIMONY-
 That kind of evidence which in a trial is presented by witnesses
verbally. Evidence is the generic term and testimony that of the
species.
ARGUMENT-
 Argument and evidence, taken together, represent the means
by which the tribunal is sought to be persuaded as to some
fact-in-issue.
FACTUM PROBANDUM (Fact in issue)-
 The ultimate fact or the fact sought to be established
 Refers to proposition
FACTUM PROBANS-
 Is the evidentiary fact or the fact by which the factum
probandum is to be established
 Materials which establish the proposition
KINDS AND DEGREES OF EVIDENCE
Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence:
 DIRECT EVIDENCE – that which proves the fact in
dispute without the aid of any interference or
presumption (Lake County vs. Nellon.)
 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – is the proof of a
fact or facts from which taken either singly or
collectively, the existence or a particular fact, in
dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable
consequence (State vs. Avery, 113, Mo., 475, 494,
21, S.W. 193)
Primary Evidence and Secondary Evidence:
 PRIMARY EVIDENCE – that which the law regards
as affording the greatest certainty of fact in question.
Also referred to as the best evidence
 SECONDARY EVIDENCE – that which is inferior to
the primary evidence and is permitted by law only
when the best evidence is not available. Known as
the substitutionary evidence
Positive Evidence and Negative Evidence:
 POSITIVE EVIDENCE – when the witness affirms
that a fact did or did not occur. Entitled to a greater
weight since the witness represents of his personal
knowledge the presence or absence of a fact
 NEGATIVE EVIDENCE – when the witness did not
see or know of the occurrence of a fact. There is a
total disclaimer of personal knowledge, hence without
any representation or disavowal that the fact in
question could or could not have existed or
happened. It is admissible only if it tends to contradict
positive evidence of the other side or would tend to
1
 exclude the existence of fact sworn to by the other  RELEVANT EVIDENCE – evidence having any value
side. in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in
an action. The test is the logical relation of the
evidentiary fact to the fact in issue, whether the
Corroborative Evidence and Cumulative Evidence: former tends to establish the probability or
improbability of the latter.
 CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE – is additional
evidence of a different kind and character tending to  MATERIAL EVIDENCE – evidence directed to prove
prove the same point (Wyne v. Newman, 75, Va., a fact in issue as determined by the rules of
811, 817) substantive law and pleadings. The test is whether
the fact it intends to prove is an issue or not. As to
whether a fact is in issue or not is in turn determined
Case:
by the substantive law, the pleadings, the pre-trial
“The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the order and by the admissions or confessions on file
victimsdied because of stab wounds inflicted by the
armed men who entered their residence on the night
 Competent Evidence:
of December 4, 1965 remain uncontroverted. XXX
Evidence is competent when it is not excluded by law
Their death certificates therefore are only
in a particular case (Porter v. Valentine)
corroborative of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.” (People vs. Watson (1965))
Irrelevant, Incompetent, Inadmissible, and Immaterial
 CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE – evidence of the same
Evidence:
kind and to the same stale of facts.

Case:
“Thus, on the issue of the capacity of a boy to write a  Irrelevant in strictness, signifies that the offered piece
certain paper, evidence of his school fellows as to his of evidence has no probative value. The rules of
capacity is cumulative to that of his teachers and circumstantial evidence are what determine the
medical men upon the same question.” (Gardner vs. irrelevancy.
Gardner, 2 Gray (Mass. 434))
 Incompetent, in strictness, signifies that an offered
witness is not qualified, under the rule of testimonial
Prima Facie Evidence and Conclusive Evidence:
evidence.
 PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE – is that which suffices for
the proof of a particular fact, until contradicted and
 Immaterial, in strictness, signifies that the offered
overcome by other evidence
evidential fact is excluded by some rule of evidence,
no matter what the rule. The rules of substantive law
ad of pleading are what determine immateriality.
 CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE – is that which is
incontrovertible. When evidence is received which the
Rebuttal and Sur-rebuttal Evidence:
law does not allow to be contradicted.
 Rebuttal Evidence – is that which is given to explain,
Cases:
repel, counteract or disprove facts given in evidence
“Accordingly, a party introducing in evidence a letter
by the adverse party (State v. Silva).
written by his agent to the adverse party, is bound by
 It is also defined as evidence in denial of some
the statements contained therein.” (Lilian Realty Co.
affirmative care or fact which the adverse party has
v. Erdum, 120 N.Y.S. 749)
attempted to prove. (Carver v. United States, 160
U.S. 553)
“In an action to recover money paid in settlement of
an account in stock transactions, plaintiff is bound by
Object (Real) Evidence:
his own testimony that the transactions were
gambling transactions, so as to preclude recovery by
 Directly addressed to the senses of the court and
him. (Atwater v. A.G. Edwards Brokerage Co, 147
consist of tangible things exhibited or demonstrated in
Mo. A. 436, 126 S.W. 822)
open court, in an ocular inspection, or at place
designated by the court for its view of observation of
an exhibition, experiment or demonstration. This is
Relevant Evidence and Material Evidence:
referred to as autoptic preference.
2
 for the exclusion of evidence that is logically
probative, which but for such exclusionary rules would
Documentary Evidence: be legal evidence, and a further set of exceptions to
these rules.
 Evidence supplied by written instruments or derived
from conventional symbols, such as letters, by which  To facilitate the ascertainment of truth.
ideas are represented on material substances
GOOD COMMAND OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
ESSENTIAL:
Testimonial Evidence:
 Cases are not always won by the righteousness of the
 Is that which is submitted to the court through the
client’s cause but by the evidence which his counsel
testimony or deposition of a witness
presents in court to support his claim or defense

Expert Evidence:
RULES OF EVIDENCE NOT STATIC:
 Is the testimony of one possessing in regard to a
 Rules of Evidence…are not static. They are
particular subject or department of human activity,
constantly undergoing change, in the interest of the
knowledge not usually acquired by other persons
successful development of the truth. The changes are
(U.S. v. Gil, 13 Phil. 530)
sometimes made by the legislatures, sometimes by
the Courts.
Substantial Evidence:
Section 2. Scope- The Rules of Evidence shall be the same
 Is that amount of relevant evidence which a
in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
otherwise provided by law or these rules.
conclusion (Philippine Overseas Drilling and Oil
Development Corp. v. Ministry of Labor, 146 SCRA
(Sec. 2, Revised Rules of Court, hereinafter, RROC)
79)
REASONS FOR THE RULE:

ROLE OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE:  The Rules of Evidence must be applied in all courts
and in all trials and hearings for the following:
What part does the Rules of Evidence play in the whole system
of law?
 The relation between the evidentiary fact and
a particular proposition is always the same,
 Enforcement of the rules requires the application of
without regard to the kind of litigation in
the law to an individual person.
which that proposition becomes material to
be proved;
WHAT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE DETERMINE:
 If the rules of evidence prescribe the best
 All rights and liabilities are dependent upon and arise course to arrive at the truth that must be ad
out of facts. are the same in all cases and in all civilized
 Every judicial proceeding whatever has for its purpose countries
the ascertaining of some right or liability. If the
proceeding is Criminal, the object is to ascertain the
liability to punishment of the person accused. If the DIFFERENCE IN THE RULES OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL
proceeding is Civil, the object is to ascertain some AND CIVIL CASES:
right of property or status, or the right of one party and
the liability of other to some form of relief. CIVIL CRIMINAL
Parties attend by The accused attends
accord by compulsion
NECESSITY FOR RULES OF EVIDENCE:
There is no Presumption of
presumption as to innocence attends the
 It is necessary that we have Rules of Evidence which either party accused throughout
will limit the field of matters that can properly be taken the trial until the same
into consideration in determining the guilt or has been overcome by
innocence of the accused, and the law of evidence, prima facie evidence
as we have, is in the shape of a set of primary rules of his guilt

3
An offer to compromise It is an implied
does not, as a general admission of guilt
rule, amount to an
admission of liability
Must prove by Guilt beyond
preponderance of reasonable doubt
evidence: Reason is
that there is no
presumption ad due to
the fact that the proof
will only result in a
judgment of pecuniary
damages
APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF EVIDENCE:
 The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the National
Labor Relations Commission (Del Rosario & Sons
Logging Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC, 136 SCRA 669);
Employees’ Compensation Commission (Philippine
Overseas Drilling and Oil Development Corporation
vs. Minister of Labor, 146 SCRA 79); Securities and
Exchange Commission; Commission on Elections
(Geromo v. COMELEC, et al., 118 SCRA 165);
Agrarian Cases (Bagsican v. CA, 141 SCRA 226);
Immigration Proceedings (Moy Yoke Shue v.
Johnson, 290 Fed. 621); Court of Tax Appeals
(Celestino Co. & Company v. Collector of Internal
Revenue, BTA Case No. 195, Oct. 4, 1954, affirmed
by the Supreme Court on Aug. 31, 1956, G.R. No. L
8506); Probation Court; Board of Transportation;
Police Commission; Oil Industry Commission; and
other similar bodies (Aldeguer v. Hoskyn, 2 Phil. 500;
Ayala de Roxas v. Case, 8 Phil. 197)
NO VESTED RIGHT OF PROPERTY IN RULES OF
EVIDENCE:
 There is no vested right of property in rules of
evidence. Hence, any evidence inadmissible
according to the laws in force at the time the action
accrued, but admissible according to the laws in force
at the time of the trial, is receivable.
RULES OF EVIDENCE SANCTIONED BY THE
CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE ALTERED BY LEGISLATION:
 A Constitutional provision sanctioning a rule of
evidence has the legal effect of making it unalterable
by ordinary statutory legislation.
RULES OF EVIDENCE MAY BE WAIVED (when available):
 The parties may waive such rules during the trial of a
case
 The can also make the waiver in a contract
Case:
“A contract of insurance requiring the testimony of
eyewitness as the only evidence admissible concerning
the death of the insured person is valid.” (National Acc.
Soc. V. Ralstin, 101, Ill. App., 192; Connel v. Travelling
Men’s Ass’n, 139, 444 N.W. 820)
“Contract waiving the privilege against the disclosure of
confidential communications made by a patient to a
physician is also valid.” (Keeler v. Iss. Co., 95 Mo. App.,
627, 69 S.W. 612)
“However, if the rule of evidence waived by the parties has
been established by law on grounds of public policy, the
waiver is void. Accordingly, the waiver of the privilege
against the disclosure of state secrets is void.” (Rowland
v. Rowland, 40 N.I. Eq., 281)
POLICY TO BE OBSERVED BY COURTS IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE:
 Reception of evidence of doubtful admissibility is in
the long run the less harmful course, since all
materials necessary for final adjudication would come
before the appellate tribunals (Obispo, et. Al. vs.
Obispo, 50 O.G. 614)
Case:“Trial courts are enjoined to observe the strict
enforcement of the rules of evidence which crystallized
through constant use and practice and are very useful and
effective aids in the search for truth and for the effective
administration of justice. But in connection with evidence
which may appear to be of doubtful relevancy or
incompetency or admissibility, it is the safest policy to be
liberal, not rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds,
but admitting them…xxx” (Banaria v. Banaria, et. al., CA.
No. 4142, May 31, 1950)
“Even in case of doubt as to the materiality or relevancy of
such question, it would be more in keeping with the
administration of justice to allow the answer to such
question and render the ruling as to its admissibility when
all evidence are in.” (People v. Jaca, et al., G.R. No. L-
10971, Nov. 28, 1959)
“Where a judge is in doubt as to the admissibility of a
particular piece of evidence, he should declare in favor of
admissibility rather than non-admissibility.” (The Collector
v. Palakadhari, 12 A. (1899))
RULE 128, Sec. 3.Admissibility of evidence.
1. Requisites of admissibility of evidence.
4
 a. Evidence is relevant to the issue evidence is determined by to do with the effect of
b. Evidence is competent, that is, it does not belong its relevance and evidence admitted, its
to that class of evidence which is excluded by the competence. tendency to convince and
law or the Rules of Evidence persuade.

Cases: The admissibility of The weight of evidence is

evidence does not depend not determined
People vs. Soriaga (G.R. No. 191392 March 14, on its weight and mathematically by
2011). The non-compliance with Section 21 of said sufficiency; credibility and numerical superiority of
law, particularly the making of the inventory and the weight being questions of witnesses testifying to a
photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, fact. given fact, but depends
upon its practical effect in
will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence.
inducing belief on the part
Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, of the judge trying the case.
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For
evidence to be inadmissible there should be a law or It involves credibility of
rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law witnesses and all inherent
or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to probabilities and
improbabilities deducible
the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the
from the evidence as a
courts. whole.

BSB GROUP, INC vs. Go (G.R. No. 168644

February 16, 2010). The testimony of Marasigan on
the particulars of respondent’s supposed bank
account with Security Bank and the documentary
evidence represented by the checks adduced in
support thereof, are not only incompetent for being
excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are
likewise irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as they do
not appear to have any logical and reasonable
connection to the prosecution of respondent for
qualified theft.
2. Two axioms of Admissibility
a. None but facts having rational probative value
are admissible. – It prescribes that whatever is
presented as evidence shall be presented on the
hypothesis that it is calculated, according to the
prevailing standards of reasoning, to effect
rational persuasion.
b. All facts having rational probative value are
admissible, unless some specific rule forbids.
– This principle does not mean that anything that
has probative value is admissible. But everything
4.
having a probative value is ipso facto entitled to
be assumed to be admissible, and therefore any
A.
rule of policy which may be valid to exclude it is a
superadded and abnormal rule.
3. Admissibility of evidence distinguished from weight of
evidence
Admissibility of Evidence Weight of Evidence
B.
The admissibility of The weight of evidence has
ILLUSTRATION:
A defendant is accused of murder and by way of
defense, he attempts to establish an alibi.
1. His mother testifies that he was at home
in bed at the time the murder was
committed; or
2. A distinguished physician testifies that
he was attending the defendant in his
home at the time the murder was
committed.
As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are equally
admissible. But it is likely that the court would give
greater weight to the testimony of a disinterested
physician than of a mother, who might be expected to
commit perjury in an effort to save her son.
Case:
Atienza vs. BOD (G.R. No. 177407 February 9,
2011). Admissibility of evidence refers to the question
whether or not the circumstance or evidence is to be
considered at all. On the other hand, the probative
value of evidence refers to the question of whether or
not it proves an issue.
Types of Admissibility
Multiple Admissibility of Evidence.
When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible
in so far as it 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 does not exclude it.
Conditional Admissibility of Evidence.

5
 Where two or more evidentiary facts are so connected
under the issues that the relevancy of one depends upon
another not yet received, and the party is unable to
introduce them both at the same moment, the offering
counsel may be required by the court as a condition
precedent (1) to state the supposed connecting facts, and
(2) to promise to give the evidence later.
Effect if condition precedent is not fulfilled:
 Upon motion by
the opposite party, the court may strike out the
evidence thus conditionally admitted
C. Curative Admissibility of Evidence.
Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by one party
and received without objection and the opponents
afterwards, for the purpose of negativing or explaining or
otherwise counteracting, offers a fact similarly
inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it serves to remove
an unfair effect upon the court which might otherwise
ensue from the original fact.
5. Rules of
Exclusion and Exclusionary Rules
Rules of Exclusion Exclusionary Rules
Governed by the rules of Evidence excluded by the
evidence Constitution
Case:
Tolentino vs. Mendoza (ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October
19, 2004). Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1,
series of 1993 only provides for sanctions against persons
violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but
nowhere does it state that procurement of birth records in
violation of said rule would render said records
inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the Revised
Rules of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of
evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal searches and
seizures. Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1,
series of 1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not
provide for the exclusion from evidence of the birth
certificates in question, said public documents are,
therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into
consideration in the resolution of this administrative case
against the respondent.
A. Admissibility of Telephone Conversations.
Unless otherwise objectionable, a telephone conversation
between a witness and another person is admissible in
any case in which a face to face conversation between a
witness and another person would be admissible in
evidence, provided that the identity of the person with
whom the witness was speaking is satisfactorily
established, but not otherwise.
Proof of Identity – through witness’ recognition of the
voice of the person with whom he was speaking, however,
it may be established by means other than the recognition
of the voice.
B. Admissibility of radio broadcast.
Evidence of a message or a speech by means of radio
broadcast is admissible as evidence when the identity of
the speaker is established by the following:
 By the testimony of a witness who saw him broadcast
his message or speech
 By the witness recognition of the voice of the
speaker
C. Admissibility of wiretapping and tape recordings.
Recording of conversations, statement, confessions,
speech, and the sounds of various kinds, are admissible in
evidence, subject of course, to the general rules relating to
hearsay, best evidence, relevancy, privilege and the like,
and subject to the proper authentication by foundation
testimony.
1. The wiretapping and other related violations of the
privacy of communications are prohibited and
penalized by Republic Act No. 4200.
REPUBLIC ACT 4200, ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT
A. UNLAWFUL ACTS
1. Section 1, par 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 word by
using a device commonly known as a
dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or
walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described
2. Section 1, par 2.
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be
he a participant or not in the act or acts
penalized in the next preceding sentence,
 to knowingly possess any tape record, wire
record, disc record, or any other such record,
or copies thereof, of any communication or
spoken word secured either before or after
6
 the effective date of this Act in the manner
prohibited by this law; or
 to replay the same for any other person or
persons; or to communicate the contents
thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to
furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other person
Provided, That the use of such record or any
copies thereof as evidence in any civil,
criminal investigation or trial of offenses
mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be
covered by this prohibition.
3. Section 2.
 Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or
who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done
any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the
preceding section or who violates the
provisions of the following section or of any
order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or
causes such violation.
B. EXEMPTED ACTS
1. Section 3, par 1.
Any peace officer, who is authorized by a
written order of the Court, to execute any of
the acts declared to be unlawful in cases
involving:
 crimes of treason,
 espionage,
 provoking war and disloyalty in case of
war,
 piracy,
 mutiny in the high seas,
 rebellion,
 conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion,
 inciting to rebellion,
 sedition,
 conspiracy to commit sedition,
 inciting to sedition,
 kidnapping as defined by the Revised
Penal Code,
 and violations of Commonwealth Act
No. 616, punishing espionage and other
offenses against national security
Requirements:
 That such written order shall only be
issued or granted upon written
application and the examination under
oath or affirmation of the applicant and
the witnesses he may produce and a
showing:
1. That there are
reasonable grounds to believe that
any of the crimes enumerated
hereinabove has been committed or
is being committed or is about to be
committed: Provided, however,
That in cases involving the offenses
of rebellion, conspiracy and
proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, and
inciting to sedition, such authority
shall be granted only upon prior
proof that a rebellion or acts of
sedition, as the case may be, have
actually been or are being
committed;
2. That there are reasonable grounds
to believe that evidence will be
obtained essential to the conviction
of any person for, or to the solution
of, or to the prevention of, any of
such crimes; and
3. That there are no other means
readily available for obtaining such
evidence.
2. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception
and Recording of Communications.
(Section 7, Republic Act No. 9372, Human
security Act)
The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200
(Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the contrary
notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement
official and the members of his team may,
upon a written order of the Court of Appeals,
listen to, intercept and record, with the use of
any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or
other surveillance equipment or intercepting
and tracking devices, or with the use of any
other suitable ways and means for that
purpose, any communication, message,
conversation, discussion, or spoken or
written words between members of a
judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, association, or group of
persons or of any person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Provided, That surveillance, interception and
recording of communications between
lawyers and clients, doctors and patients,
journalists and their sources and confidential
business correspondence shall not be
authorized.
7
 C. Admissibility
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. (Section 4, R. A. 4200)
Gaanan vs. IAC, et al., 145 SCRA 112.The law refers to a
“tap” of wire or cable or the use of a device or arrangement” for
the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording
the communication… The extension telephone cannot be
placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictagraph or
the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as
the use thereof cannot be considered as “tapping” the wire not
installed for that purpose.
2. Requisites to be established before a recording of
conversation can be given probative value:
a) A showing that the recording device was
capable of taking testimony;
b) A showing that the operator of the
device was competent;
c) Establishment of the authenticity and
correctness of the recording;
d) A showing that changes, additions, or
deletions have not been made;
e) A showing of manner of the preservation
of the recording;
f) Identification of the speakers; and
g) A showing that the testimony elicited
was voluntarily made without any kind of
inducement
D. Admissibility of evidence illegally seized.
Rights protected under Article III, Bill of Rights of the 1987
Constitution:
1. Right against unreasonable search and seizure. (
Sec. 2)
2. Right to privacy and inviolability of communication (
Sec. 3)
3. Right of a person under investigation for an offense
(Sec. 12)
4. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17)
Case:
Ambre vs. People (G.R. No. 191532 August 15,
2012).Section 2, Article III of the Constitution
mandates that a search and seizure must be carried
out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant
predicated upon the existence of probable cause,
absent which such search and seizure becomes
"unreasonable" within the meaning of said
constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and
confiscated on the occasion of such an unreasonable
search and seizure is tainted and should be excluded
for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In
the language of the fundamental law, it shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.
 This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute
and rigid proscription. One of the recognized
exception established by jurisprudence is search
incident to a lawful arrest. In this exception, the law
requires that a lawful arrest must precede the search
of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is
considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant
of arrest.
E. Admissibility of Electronic Documents.
An electronic document is admissible in evidence if:
1. It complies with the Rules on admissibility
prescribed by the Rules and related laws; and
2. It is authenticated in the manner by the Rules on
Electronic Evidence
F. Scientific Detection Devices.
1. Lie detector
2. Speed detection and recording devices
3. Chemical tests for drunkenness
4. Truth serums and hypnosis
5. Blood grouping tests
RULE 128, Section 4.Relevancy; Collateral maters.
1. Relevancy of Evidence
a. Evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a
fact in issue; or to a fact which, by the process of
logic, an inference may be made as to the
existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.
b. Evidentiary facts are relevant where there is such
rational and logical connection between them and
the matter in issue that proof of the former
logically tends to make the latter more probable
or improbable, that is, where the facts offered in
evidence have a legitimate tendency to establish
the truth concerning a controversial issue.
Case:
Herrera vs. Alba (G.R. No. 148220 June 15,
2005).Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to
the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by
statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant
when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
Section 49 of Rule 130, which governs the
admissibility of expert testimony, provides that the
opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
8
 knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is
shown to possess may be received in evidence. This
Rule does not pose any legal obstacle to the
admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed,
even evidence on collateral matters is allowed "when
it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
2. Test of Relevancy
probative value of such evidence against the likely
harm that would result from its admission.
5. Issue defined.
It is the point or points in question, at the conclusion of the
pleadings which one side affirms, and the other denies.
Issues arise upon the pleading where a fact or conclusion
of law is maintained by one party, and is controverted by
the other.

a. Every fact or circumstance tending to throw light 6. Fact defined

on the issue is logically inferable
b. Any circumstance is relevant from which tends to It is a thing done, or existing. Facts are thus either:
make the proposition at issue more or less a. Physical, e.g. the existence of visible objects
probable, or which is calculated to explain or b. Psychological, e.g. the intention or animus of a
establish facts pertinent to the inquiry particular individual in doing a particular act
c. The test is whether the evidence conduces to the
proof of a pertinent hypothesis being one which, 7. Facts in issue as distinguished from facts relevant to
if sustained, would logically influence the issue the case
d. Facts are relevant if they fairly tend to prove the
offense charged Facts in issue Facts relevant to the
e. The test is the connection between the fact issue
proved and the offense charged. Those facts the truth or Facts from the existence of
existence of which the right which inference as to the
or liability to be ascertained truth or existence of the
3. Relevancy does not generally depend upon its source. in the proceeding depends right or liability to be
ascertained may logically
Whether evidence offered is relevant does not, as a be drawn
general rule, depend upon its source. Neither does
relevancy depend upon the importance or weight of the
evidence, weight being a matter for the court. 8. Collateral facts defined
4. Logical relevancy distinguished form legal relevancy
Those facts which are outside of the controversy, or are
not directly connected with the principal matter in issue in
Logical relevancy Legal Relevancy dispute, as indicated in the pleadings of the parties.
Means that evidence must Requires a higher standard
be absolutely essential to of evidentiary force and 9. Collateral facts in evidence
the fact in issue. includes logical relevancy.
The main condition of All rules excluding evidence General Rule: Collateral facts are not admissible for they
admissibility which is logically relevant tend to draw away the mind of the court and to prejudice
are exceptions to the and mislead it.
general rule.
The attribute of all those Exception: Evidence on collateral matters shall be
logically relevant matters allowed when it tends in any reasonable degree to
which are not declared establish the probability or improbability of the fact in
inadmissible by one or issue.
more of the excluding rules.

Case: Relevant collateral matters:

 People vs. Yatar (G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004).
Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon
duly established evidence and never on mere
conjectures or suppositions. The legal relevancy of
evidence denotes "something more than a minimum
of probative value," suggesting that such evidentiary
relevance must contain a "plus value." This may be
necessary to preclude the trial court from being
satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being
exaggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusions.
Evidence without "plus value" may be logically
relevant but not legally sufficient to convict. It is
incumbent upon the trial court to balance the
a. Intention to commit crime
b. Motive and absence of motive
c. Circumstances preceding the crime
d. Guilty knowledge
e. Plan, design or conspiracy
f. Opportunity
g. Alibi
h. Value
10. Probability and improbability of evidential fact
The truth of any statement of fact may be considered from
the standpoint of the probability or improbability of the fact
per se. Its probability or improbability is to be measured by
the degree with which the fact as stated accords with the
general experience of mankind.

9
 8. Admissibility of evidence distinguished from weight of
RULE 128, Sec. 3.Admissibility of evidence. evidence

6. Requisites of admissibility of evidence. Admissibility of Evidence Weight of Evidence

a. Evidence is relevant to the issue The admissibility of The weight of evidence has
b. Evidence is competent, that is, it does not belong evidence is determined by to do with the effect of
its relevance and evidence admitted, its
to that class of evidence which is excluded by the
competence. tendency to convince and
law or the Rules of Evidence persuade.

Cases: The admissibility of The weight of evidence is

evidence does not depend not determined
People vs. Soriaga (G.R. No. 191392 March 14, on its weight and mathematically by
sufficiency; credibility and numerical superiority of
2011). The non-compliance with Section 21 of said
weight being questions of witnesses testifying to a
law, particularly the making of the inventory and the fact. given fact, but depends
photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, upon its practical effect in
will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. inducing belief on the part
Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, of the judge trying the case.
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For
It involves credibility of
evidence to be inadmissible there should be a law or
witnesses and all inherent
rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law probabilities and
or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to improbabilities deducible
the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the from the evidence as a
courts. whole.
ILLUSTRATION:
 BSB GROUP, INC A defendant is accused of murder and by way of
vs. Go (G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010). The defense, he attempts to establish an alibi.
1. His mother testifies that he was at home
testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of
in bed at the time the murder was
respondent’s supposed bank account with Security committed; or
Bank and the documentary evidence represented by 2. A distinguished physician testifies that
the checks adduced in support thereof, are not only he was attending the defendant in his
incompetent for being excluded by operation of R.A. home at the time the murder was
No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case, committed.
inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical
As will be observed, both (1) and (2) are equally
and reasonable connection to the prosecution of
admissible. But it is likely that the court would give
respondent for qualified theft. greater weight to the testimony of a disinterested
physician than of a mother, who might be expected to
7. Two axioms of Admissibility commit perjury in an effort to save her son.

a. None but facts having rational probative value

are admissible. – It prescribes that whatever is
presented as evidence shall be presented on the
hypothesis that it is calculated, according to the
prevailing standards of reasoning, to effect
rational persuasion.
b. All facts having rational probative value are
admissible, unless some specific rule forbids.
– This principle does not mean that anything that
has probative value is admissible. But everything
having a probative value is ipso facto entitled to
be assumed to be admissible, and therefore any
rule of policy which may be valid to exclude it is a
superadded and abnormal rule.
Case:
Atienza vs. BOD (G.R. No. 177407 February 9,
2011). Admissibility of evidence refers to the question
whether or not the circumstance or evidence is to be
considered at all. On the other hand, the probative
value of evidence refers to the question of whether or
not it proves an issue.
9. Types of Admissibility
A. Multiple Admissibility of Evidence.
When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is admissible
in so far as it satisfies all rules applicable to it when
offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy some other

10
 rule which would be applicable to it if offered for another
purpose does not exclude it.
B. Conditional Admissibility of Evidence.
Where two or more evidentiary facts are so connected
under the issues that the relevancy of one depends upon
another not yet received, and the party is unable to
introduce them both at the same moment, the offering
counsel may be required by the court as a condition
precedent (1) to state the supposed connecting facts, and
(2) to promise to give the evidence later.
Effect if condition precedent is not fulfilled:
 Upon motion by the opposite party, the
court may strike out the evidence thus
conditionally admitted
C. Curative Admissibility of Evidence.
Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by one party
and received without objection and the opponents
afterwards, for the purpose of negativing or explaining or
otherwise counteracting, offers a fact similarly
inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it serves to remove
an unfair effect upon the court which might otherwise
ensue from the original fact.
10. Rules of Exclusion and Exclusionary Rules
Rules of Exclusion Exclusionary Rules
Governed by the rules of Evidence excluded by the
evidence Constitution
Case:
Tolentino vs. Mendoza (ADM. CASE NO. 5151
October 19, 2004). Note that Rule 24, Administrative
Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides for
sanctions against persons violating the rule on
confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it
state that procurement of birth records in violation of
said rule would render said records inadmissible in
evidence. On the other hand, the Revised Rules of
Evidence only provides for the exclusion of evidence
if it is obtained as a result of illegal searches and
seizures.Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No.
1, series of 1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence
do not provide for the exclusion from evidence of the
birth certificates in question, said public documents
are, therefore, admissible and should be properly
taken into consideration in the resolution of this
administrative case against the respondent.
G. Admissibility of Telephone Conversations.
Unless otherwise objectionable, a telephone conversation
between a witness and another person is admissible in
any case in which a face to face conversation between a
witness and another person would be admissible in
evidence, provided that the identity of the person with
whom the witness was speaking is satisfactorily
established, but not otherwise.
Proof of Identity – through witness’
recognition of the voice of the person with
whom he was speaking, however, it may be
established by means other than the
recognition of the voice.
H. Admissibility of radio broadcast.
Evidence of a message or a speech by means of radio
broadcast is admissible as evidence when the identity of
the speaker is established by the following:
 By the testimony of a witness who saw
him broadcast his message or speech
 By the witness recognition of the voice
of the speaker
I. Admissibility of wiretapping and tape recordings.
Recording of conversations, statement, confessions,
speech, and the sounds of various kinds, are admissible in
evidence, subject of course, to the general rules relating to
hearsay, best evidence, relevancy, privilege and the like,
and subject to the proper authentication by foundation
testimony.
3. The wiretapping and other related violations of the
privacy of communications are prohibited and
penalized by Republic Act No. 4200.
REPUBLIC ACT 4200, ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT
D. UNLAWFUL ACTS
4. Section 1, par 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 word by
using a device commonly known as a
dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or
walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described
5. Section 1, par 2.
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be
he a participant or not in the act or acts
penalized in the next preceding sentence,
 to knowingly possess any tape
record, wire record, disc record, or any other
such record, or copies thereof, of any
11
 communication or spoken word secured
either before or after the effective date of this
Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or
 to replay the same for any other person or
persons; or to communicate the contents
thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to
furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other person
 Provided, That the use of such record or any
copies thereof as evidence in any civil,
criminal investigation or trial of offenses
mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be
covered by this prohibition.
6. Section 2.
Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or
who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done
any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the
preceding section or who violates the
provisions of the following section or of any
order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or
causes such violation.
E. EXEMPTED ACTS
3. Section 3, par
1.Any peace officer, who is authorized by a
written order of the Court, to execute any of
the acts declared to be unlawful in cases
involving:
 crimes of treason,
 espionage,
 provoking war and disloyalty in case of
war,
 piracy,
 mutiny in the high seas,
 rebellion,
 conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion,
 inciting to rebellion,
 sedition,
 conspiracy to commit sedition,
 inciting to sedition,
 kidnapping as defined by the Revised
Penal Code,
 and violations of Commonwealth Act
No. 616, punishing espionage and other
offenses against national security
Requirements:
 That such written order shall only be
issued or granted upon written
application and the examination under
oath or affirmation of the applicant and
the witnesses he may produce and a
showing:
1. That there are reasonable grounds to
believe that any of the crimes
enumerated hereinabove has been
committed or is being committed or is
about to be committed: Provided,
however, That in cases involving the
offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and
proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to
rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit
sedition, and inciting to sedition, such
authority shall be granted only upon
prior proof that a rebellion or acts of
sedition, as the case may be, have
actually been or are being committed;
2. That there are reasonable grounds to
believe that evidence will be obtained
essential to the conviction of any person
for, or to the solution of, or to the
prevention of, any of such crimes; and
3. That there are no other means readily
available for obtaining such evidence.
4. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception
and Recording of Communications.
(Section 7, Republic Act No. 9372, Human
security Act)
 The provisions of
Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping
Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a
police or law enforcement official and the
members of his team may, upon a written
order of the Court of Appeals, listen to,
intercept and record, with the use of any
mode, form, kind or type of electronic or
other surveillance equipment or intercepting
and tracking devices, or with the use of any
other suitable ways and means for that
purpose, any communication, message,
conversation, discussion, or spoken or
written words between members of a
judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, association, or group of
persons or of any person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism.
 Provided, That surveillance, interception and
recording of communications between
lawyers and clients, doctors and patients,
journalists and their sources and confidential
business correspondence shall not be
authorized.
F. Admissibility
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
12
 admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-
judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation. (Section 4, R. A. 4200)
Gaanan vs. IAC, et al., 145 SCRA 112.The law
refers to a “tap” of wire or cable or the use of a device
or arrangement” for the purpose of secretly
overhearing, intercepting, or recording the
communication… The extension telephone cannot be
placed in the same category as a Dictaphone,
dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in
Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot
be considered as “tapping” the wire not installed for
that purpose.
4. Requisites to be established before a recording of
conversation can be given probative value:
a. A showing that the recording device was
capable of taking testimony;
b. A showing that the operator of the device
was competent;
c. Establishment of the authenticity and
correctness of the recording;
d. A showing that changes, additions, or
deletions have not been made;
e. A showing of manner of the preservation of
the recording;
f. Identification of the speakers; and
g. A showing that the testimony elicited was
voluntarily made without any kind of
inducement
J. Admissibility of evidence illegally seized.
Rights protected under Article III, Bill of Rights of the 1987
Constitution:
5. Right against unreasonable search and
seizure. ( Sec. 2)
6. Right to privacy and inviolability of
communication ( Sec. 3)
7. Right of a person under investigation for an
offense (Sec. 12)
8. Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17)
Case:
 Ambre vs. People
(G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012).Section 2, Article
III of the Constitution mandates that a search and
seizure must be carried out through or on the strength
of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of
probable cause, absent which such search and
seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning
of said constitutional provision. Evidence obtained
and confiscated on the occasion of such an
unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and
should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a
poisonous tree. In the language of the fundamental
law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose in any proceeding.
 This exclusionary
rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid
proscription. One of the recognized exception
established by jurisprudence is search incident to a
lawful arrest. In this exception, the law requires that a
lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and
his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is considered
legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.
K. Admissibility of Electronic Documents.
An electronic document is admissible in evidence if:
3. It complies with the Rules on admissibility
prescribed by the Rules and related laws; and
4. It is authenticated in the manner by the Rules on
Electronic Evidence
L. Scientific Detection Devices.
6. Lie detector
7. Speed detection and recording devices
8. Chemical tests for drunkenness
9. Truth serums and hypnosis
10. Blood grouping tests
RULE 128, Section 4.Relevancy; Collateral maters.
11. Relevancy of Evidence
c. Evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a
fact in issue; or to a fact which, by the process of
logic, an inference may be made as to the
existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.
d. Evidentiary facts are relevant where there is such
rational and logical connection between them and
the matter in issue that proof of the former
logically tends to make the latter more probable
or improbable, that is, where the facts offered in
evidence have a legitimate tendency to establish
the truth concerning a controversial issue.
Case:
Herrera vs. Alba (G.R. No. 148220 June 15,
2005).Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to
the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by
statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant
when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
Section 49 of Rule 130, which governs the
admissibility of expert testimony, provides that the
opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is
shown to possess may be received in evidence. This
Rule does not pose any legal obstacle to the
admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed,
even evidence on collateral matters is allowed "when
it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
13
12. Test of Relevancy
16. Fact defined
a. Every fact or circumstance tending to throw light
on the issue is logically inferable It is a thing done, or existing. Facts are thus either:
b. Any circumstance is relevant from which tends to c. Physical, e.g. the existence of visible objects
make the proposition at issue more or less d. Psychological, e.g. the intention or animus of a
probable, or which is calculated to explain or particular individual in doing a particular act
establish facts pertinent to the inquiry
c. The test is whether the evidence conduces to the
proof of a pertinent hypothesis being one which, 17. Facts in issue as distinguished from facts relevant to
if sustained, would logically influence the issue the case
d. Facts are relevant if they fairly tend to prove the
offense charged Facts in issue Facts relevant to the
e. The test is the connection between the fact issue
proved and the offense charged. Those facts the truth or Facts from the existence of
existence of which the right which inference as to the
13. Relevancy does not generally depend upon its source. or liability to be ascertained truth or existence of the
in the proceeding depends right or liability to be
Whether evidence offered is relevant does not, as a ascertained may logically
general rule, depend upon its source. Neither does be drawn
relevancy depend upon the importance or weight of the
evidence, weight being a matter for the court.
18. Collateral facts defined

14. Logical relevancy distinguished form legal relevancy Those facts which are outside of the controversy, or are
not directly connected with the principal matter in issue in
Logical relevancy Legal Relevancy dispute, as indicated in the pleadings of the parties.
Means that evidence must Requires a higher standard
be absolutely essential to of evidentiary force and 19. Collateral facts in evidence
the fact in issue. includes logical relevancy.
The main condition of All rules excluding evidence General Rule: Collateral facts are not admissible for they
admissibility which is logically relevant tend to draw away the mind of the court and to prejudice
are exceptions to the and mislead it.
general rule.
The attribute of all those Exception: Evidence on collateral matters shall be
logically relevant matters allowed when it tends in any reasonable degree to
which are not declared establish the probability or improbability of the fact in
inadmissible by one or issue.
more of the excluding rules.
Relevant collateral matters:
Case: i. Intention to commit crime
 People vs. Yatar (G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004). j. Motive and absence of motive
Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon k. Circumstances preceding the crime
l. Guilty knowledge
duly established evidence and never on mere
m. Plan, design or conspiracy
conjectures or suppositions. The legal relevancy of n. Opportunity
evidence denotes "something more than a minimum o. Alibi
of probative value," suggesting that such evidentiary p. Value
relevance must contain a "plus value." This may be
necessary to preclude the trial court from being 20. Probability and improbability of evidential fact
satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being
The truth of any statement of fact may be considered from
exaggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusions. the standpoint of the probability or improbability of the fact
Evidence without "plus value" may be logically per se. Its probability or improbability is to be measured by
relevant but not legally sufficient to convict. It is the degree with which the fact as stated accords with the
incumbent upon the trial court to balance the general experience of mankind.
probative value of such evidence against the likely
harm that would result from its admission.
G.R. No. 191392 March 14, 2011
15. Issue defined. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLLY SORIAGA y
STO. DOMINGO
It is the point or points in question, at the conclusion of the
pleadings which one side affirms, and the other denies. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or
Issues arise upon the pleading where a fact or conclusion rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or
of law is maintained by one party, and is controverted by
the other.
14
rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the
evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the courts.
FACTS:
Pursuant to a buy-bust operation conducted by the police,
Soriaga was placed under arrest and brought to the office of
the Anti-illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force. The
evidence seized was turned over to police investigator PO2
Reynaldo Juan. An examination was conducted on the
contents of the plastic sachet which tested positive for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.Soriaga was charged with
Violation of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165. In addition to the
above-mentioned charge, Soriaga was indicted for illegal use
of dangerous drugs under Section 15, Article II, also of R.A.
No. 9165. The trial court rendered a decision acquitting
Soriaga of this charge of illegal use of dangerous drugs but
finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
illegally selling dangerous drugs. Soriaga appealed the
decision arguing that that buy-bust team failed to comply with
the requisites of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its
implementing rules requiring the immediate inventory and
photograph of the items seized in the buy-bust operation.
Further, Soriaga proceeds to question the chain of custody of
the seized shabu.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the non-compliance with the prescribed
procedures in the inventory of seized drugs render the items
seized or confiscated inadmissible as evidence.
HELD:
No. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby
ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping
and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal
plan. In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been
proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug
peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal
safeguards is undertaken."
The that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law,
particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing
of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the
drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of
the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant
to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For
evidence to be inadmissible there should be a law or rule
which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the
evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary
weight that will be accorded it by the courts.
There is no provision or statement in said law or in any rule
that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated
and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-
compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of
weight — evidentiary merit or probative value — to be given
the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said
evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each
case.
G.R. No. 168644 February 16, 2010
BSB GROUP, INC., represented by its President, Mr.
RICARDO BANGAYAN, vs.
SALLY GO a.k.a. SALLY GO-BANGAYAN
The testimony and the documentary evidence presented
are not only incompetent for being excluded by operation
of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case,
inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and
reasonable connection to the prosecution of respondent
for qualified theft.
FACTS:
Respondent Sally Go, cashier of petioner BSB Group, Inc. was
charged with qualified theft. On the premise that respondent
had allegedly encashed the subject checks and deposited the
corresponding amounts thereof to her personal banking
account, the prosecution moved for the issuance of subpoena
ducestecum /ad testificandum against the respective managers
or records custodians of Security Bank and Metrobank which
was granted by the trial court. The prosecution was able to
present in court the testimony of ElenitaMarasigan, the
representative of Security Bank whose testimony sought to
prove that respondent, while engaged as cashier at the BSB
Group, Inc., was able to run away with the checks issued to the
company by its customers, endorse the same, and credit the
corresponding amounts to her personal deposit account with
Security Bank. In the course of the testimony, the subject
checks were presented to Marasigan for identification and
marking as the same checks received by respondent,
endorsed, and then deposited in her personal account with
Security Bank. But before the testimony could be completed,
respondent filed a Motion to Suppress, seeking the exclusion
of Marasigan’s testimony and accompanying documents thus
far received, bearing on the subject Security Bank account.
This time respondent invokes, in addition to irrelevancy, the
privilege of confidentiality under R.A. No. 1405. The trial court
in its order denied respondent’s motion to suppress.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimony of Marasigan and the
accompanying documents are irrelevant to the case, and
whether they are also violative of the absolutely confidential
nature of bank deposits and, hence, excluded by operation of
R.A. No. 1405.
HELD:
15
Yes. In taking exclusion from the coverage of the
confidentiality rule, petitioner in the instant case posits that the
account maintained by respondent with Security Bank contains
the proceeds of the checks that she has fraudulently
appropriated to herself and, thus, falls under one of the
exceptions in Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 that the money kept
in said account is the subject matter in litigation. What indeed
constitutes the subject matter in litigation in relation to Section
2 of R.A. No. 1405 has been pointedly and amply addressed in
Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, in which the
Court noted that the inquiry into bank deposits allowable under
R.A. No. 1405 must be premised on the fact that the money
deposited in the account is itself the subject of the action.
Given this perspective, the subject matter of the action in the
case at bar is to be determined from the indictment that
charges respondent with the offense, and not from the
evidence sought by the prosecution to be admitted into the
records. In the criminal Information filed with the trial court,
respondent, unqualifiedly and in plain language, is charged
with qualified theft by abusing petitioner’s trust and confidence
and stealing cash. The said Information makes no factual
allegation that in some material way involves the checks
subject of the testimonial and documentary evidence sought to
be suppressed. Neither do the allegations in said Information
make mention of the supposed bank account in which the
funds represented by the checks have allegedly been kept. It
comes clear that the admission of testimonial and documentary
evidence relative to respondent’s Security Bank account
serves no other purpose than to establish the existence of
such account, its nature and the amount kept in it. It constitutes
an attempt by the prosecution at an impermissible inquiry into
a bank deposit account the privacy and confidentiality of which
is protected by law. On this score alone, the objection posed
by respondent in her motion to suppress should have indeed
put an end to the controversy at the very first instance it was
raised before the trial court. In sum, the Court holds that the
testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of respondent’s
supposed bank account with Security Bank and the
documentary evidence represented by the checks adduced in
support thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded
by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to
the case, inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical
and reasonable connection to the prosecution of respondent
for qualified theft.
G.R. No. 177407 February 9, 2011
RICO ROMMEL ATIENZA, vs. BOARD OF MEDICINE and
EDITHA SIOSON
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question whether or
not the circumstance or evidence is to be considered at
all. On the other hand, the probative value of evidence
refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue.
FACTS:
A complaint for gross negligence was filed before the Board of
Medicine against the doctors, including the petitioner Atienza,
who allegedly participated in the fateful kidney operation which
led to the removal of the private respondent’s functional right
kidney instead of the left non-functioning kidney. The complaint
was heard by the BOM. Private respondent Editha filed her
formal offer of documentary evidence, which is offered for the
purpose of proving that her kidneys were both in proper
anatomical locations at the time she was operated. Petitioner
objected to the formal offer of exhibits alleging that they are
inadmissible because the same are mere photocopies, not
properly identified and authenticated, and intended to establish
matters which are hearsay and incompetent to prove the
purpose for which they are offered. However, the BOM
admitted the documentary exhibits. A motion for
reconsideration was filed by the petitioner but was denied by
the BOM. Hence, a petition for certiorari was filed before the
Court of Appeals but was dismissed by the Court.Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the documentary exhibits are inadmissible as
evidence and incompetent?
HELD:
No. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of PNOC
Shipping and Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
admissibility of evidence is distinguished from probative weight
of evidence, as:
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question
whether or not the circumstance or evidence is
to be considered at all. On the other hand, the
probative value of evidence refers to the
question of whether or not it proves an issue.
The fact sought to be established by the admission of Editha’s
exhibits, that her "kidneys were both in their proper anatomical
locations at the time" of her operation, need not be proved as it
is covered by mandatory judicial notice. The rules of evidence
are merely the means for ascertaining the truth respecting a
matter of fact. Thus, they likewise provide for some facts which
are established and need not be proved, such as those
covered by judicial notice, both mandatory and discretionary.
Laws of nature involving the physical sciences, specifically
biology, include the structural make-up and composition of
living things such as human beings. In this case, the Court may
take judicial notice that Editha’s kidneys before, and at the time
of, her operation, as with most human beings, were in their
proper anatomical locations.
ADM. CASE NO. 5151 October 19, 2004
PEDRO G. TOLENTINO vs. ATTY. NORBERTO M.
MENDOZA
Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of
1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide
for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in
16
question, said public documents are, therefore, admissible
as evidence.
FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Norberto M. Mendoza was administratively
charged with Grossly Immoral Conduct and Gross Misconduct.
Complainants alleged that respondent, a former Municipal Trial
Court Judge, abandoned his legal wife, Felicitas V. Valderia in
favor of his paramour, Marilyn delaFuente, who is, in turn,
married to one Ramon G. Marcos. On the other hand,
respondent averred that complainants illegally procured copies
of the birth certificates of his alleged daughters Mara
KhrisnaCharminadelaFuente Mendoza and
MyrraKhrisnaNorminadelaFuente Mendoza, in violation of Rule
24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993, thus, such
documents are inadmissible in evidence.
ISSUE:
Whether or not birth certificates are inadmissible in evidence
for having been obtained in violation of Rule 24, Administrative
Order No. 1, series of 1993 which provides for strict
confidentiality of a person’s birth record.
HELD:
No. Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
provides that "evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules." There
could be no dispute that the subject birth certificates are
relevant to the issue. The only question, therefore, is whether
the law or the rules provide for the inadmissibility of said birth
certificates allegedly for having been obtained in violation of
Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993.
Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993
only provides for sanctions against persons violating the rule
on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it state
that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would
render said records inadmissible in evidence. On the other
hand, the Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the
exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal
searches and seizures. It should be emphasized; however, that
said rule against unreasonable searches and seizures is meant
only to protect a person from interference by the government
or the state.
Consequently, in this case where complainants, as private
individuals, obtained the subject birth records as evidence
against respondent, the protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures does not apply.
Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993
and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the
exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in question,
said public documents are, therefore, admissible and should
be properly taken into consideration in the resolution of this
administrative case against respondent.
G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012
MARGARITA AMBRE Y CAYUNI, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
The exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and
rigid proscription. One of the recognized exception
established by jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful
arrest.
FACTS:
Ambre was charged with the crime of violation of Section 15,
Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. From the testimonies
of prosecution witnesses, it appeared that on April 20, 2005,
the Caloocan Police Station Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operation
Unit conducted a buy-bust operation pursuant to a tip from a
police, the buy-bust operation resulted in the arrest of Ambre
having pot session, in particular, was caught sniffing what was
suspected to be shabu in a rolled up aluminum foil. The trial
court rendered its decision declaring that the prosecution was
able to establish with certitude the guilt of Ambre for illegal use
of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or violation of Section 15,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, however, acquitted Ambre on the
crime of violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for
failure of the prosecution to prove with particularity the drug
paraphernalia found in her possession.
ISSUE:
Whether the warrantless arrest of Ambre and the search of her
person was valid; and whether the items seized are admissible
in evidence.
HELD:
Yes. Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates that a
search and seizure must be carried out through or on the
strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of
probable cause, absent which such search and seizure
becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of said
constitutional provision. Evidence obtained and confiscated on
the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is
tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of
a poisonous tree. In the language of the fundamental law, it
shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.
This exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid
proscription. One of the recognized exception established by
jurisprudence is search incident to a lawful arrest. In this
exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must precede
the search of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest
is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of
arrest.
17
In this case, there is no gainsaying that Ambre was caught by
the police officers in the act of using shabu and, thus, can be
lawfully arrested without a warrant. His conviction stands.
G.R. No. 148220 June 15, 2005
ROSENDO HERRERA vs. ROSENDO ALBA
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in
issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the
Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a
relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence.
FACTS:
Thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba represented by his mother
Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory
recognition, support and damages against petitioner. Petitioner
Herrera denied that he is the biological father of respondent
and denied physical contact with respondent’s
mother.Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA
paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings.Petitioner
opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not
gained acceptability and further argued that DNA paternity
testing violates his right against self-incrimination. The trial
court granted respondent’s motion to conduct DNA paternity
testing on petitioner. Petitioner filed before the appellate court
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 asserting that the trial
court acted "in excess of, or without jurisdiction and/or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction”, in issuing the order of DNA testing, however, the
petition was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a DNA test is a valid probative tool to
determine filiation and as such be admissible in evidence in a
paternity suit.
HELD:
Yes. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in
issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of
Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the
fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence. Section 49 of Rule 130, which governs the
admissibility of expert testimony, provides that the opinion of a
witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience or training which he is shown to possess may be
received in evidence. This Rule does not pose any legal
obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence.
Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters is allowed "when it
tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue."
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore,
courts should consider, among other things, the following data:
how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the
possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure
followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper
standards and procedures were followed in conducting the
tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the
tests. DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from
paternity should be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the
value of Probability of Paternity (W) is less than 99.9%, the
results of the DNA analysis should be considered as
corroborative evidence. If the value of Probability of Paternity
(W) is 99.9% or higher, then there is refutable presumption of
paternity.
The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the
investigation of the paternity and filiation of children, especially
of illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the right of the
putative parent to claim his or her own defenses. Where the
evidence to aid this investigation is obtainable through the
facilities of modern science and technology, such evidence
should be considered subject to the limits established by the
law, rules, and jurisprudence.
G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOEL YATAR alias
"KAWIT"
The legal relevancy of evidence denotes "something more
than a minimum of probative value," suggesting that such
evidentiary relevance must contain a "plus value." This
may be necessary to preclude the trial court from being
satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being
exaggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusions.
Evidence without "plus value" may be logically relevant
but not legally sufficient to convict.
FACTS:
Joel Yatar was convicted by the trial court with rape with
homicide defined and penalized under Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, otherwise
known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, and was accordingly,
sentenced to Death. Pursuant to Article 47 of the revised Penal
Code, an automatic review was made, the appellant alleging
that the trial court gravely erred in giving weight to the
evidence presented by the prosecution notwithstanding their
doubtfulness and thereby he should be acquitted from the
crime charged due to reasonable doubt.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court committed reversible error in
convicting the accused of the crime charged on the basis of
circumstantial evidence.
HELD:
No. Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to warrant a
conviction, must form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair
and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion
18
of others, is the perpetrator of the crime. To determine whether
there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, three requisites
must concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) facts
on which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon duly
established evidence and never on mere conjectures or
suppositions. The legal relevancy of evidence denotes
"something more than a minimum of probative value,"
suggesting that such evidentiary relevance must contain a
"plus value." This may be necessary to preclude the trial court
from being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being
exaggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusions. Evidence
without "plus value" may be logically relevant but not legally
sufficient to convict. It is incumbent upon the trial court to
balance the probative value of such evidence against the likely
harm that would result from its admission.
The judgment in a criminal case can be upheld only when
there is relevant evidence from which the court can properly
find or infer that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral certainty
of guilt in order to sustain a conviction. Moral certainty is that
degree of certainty that convinces and directs the
understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those
who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. It is certainty
beyond reasonable doubt. This requires that the
circumstances, taken together, should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency; leading, on the whole, to a satisfactory
Section 1.Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall
take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence of the:
a. the existence and territorial extent of states;
b. their political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality;
c. the law of nations;
d. the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
their seals;
e. the political constitution and history of the Philippines
the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines;
f. the laws of nature;
g. the measure of time;
h. and the geographical divisions.
Judicial Notice, defined:
-It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly
take and act on without proof because they already know
them.
-It is the notice taken by the court, without the production of
evidence, of facts, which are within common knowledge and
experience.
conclusion that the accused, and no one else, committed the
offense charged. In view of the totality of evidence appreciated
thus far, we rule that the present case passes the test of moral
certainty.
However, as a matter of procedure, and for the purpose of
meeting the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt,
motive is essential for conviction when there is doubt as to the
identity of the culprit. Thus, appellant’s motive to sexually
assault and kill the victim was evident in the instant case. It is a
rule in criminal law that motive, being a state of mind, is
established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or
statements of the accused before or immediately after the
commission of the offense, deeds or words that may express it
or from which his motive or reason for committing it may be
inferred. Accordingly, the Court is convinced that the appellant
is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime
of rape with homicide. Appellant sexually assaulted
KathylynUba, and by reason or on the occasion thereof, in
order to conceal his lustful deed, permanently sealed the
victim’s lips by stabbing her repeatedly, thereby causing her
untimely demise.
RULE 129
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
KINDS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE
MANDATORY DISCRETIONARY
-it is mandatory as - Under Sec. 2, on
far as those matters matters which are of
enumerated in Sec. public knowledge, or
are capable of
1, Rule 129;
unquestionable
demonstration,
ought to be known to
judges because of
their judicial
functions.
Note: The application of the doctrine of judicial notice is not
confined to the courts of record. Certain special tribunals which
are not strictly courts but which partake of their nature and the
findings of which partake of the nature of judgments may take
judicial notice on certain matters.
Points to Remember:
19
a. All courts of justice are bound to take judicial notice of the
territorial extent of the jurisdiction exercised by the government 3. Judiciary Department The Supreme Court has
the laws of which they administer and of the extent and taken judicial notice of its
boundaries of the territory under which they themselves can record in a previous case
in connection with the
exercise jurisdiction;
conduct of the litigant or
witness in a similar
b. It is without an exception for the court to take judicial matter.
notice without of those great historical events which have
affected the destiny of our nation or other nations; General Rule: Courts are
not authorized to take
c. The rule must be taken with the qualification that it relates judicial knowledge of
only to such governments as have been recognized by the contents of the other
home government. The recognition of a foreign government is cases, in the adjudication
of cases pending before
a political rather than a judicial matter and therefore courts
them, even though the
follow the determination of the executive department of the trial judge in fact knows
forum; or remember the
contents thereof;
d. In conformity to the law of nations all courts in a
government, where that government has recognized the
existence of a foreign nation, but not in the absence of such i. Courts judicially recognize all public matters which will
recognition will take cognizance of the flag and great seal of affect the government of the country. On this
that nation or provinces; principle, the accession and death of the sovereign
and principal officers of the state are recognized;
j. Judicial Notice is taken of the familiar and
e. Foreign law must be proved as facts, those rules which by
unquestionable laws of nature and of the existence of
common consent of mankind have been acquiesced in as las fact which happened according to the course of
stand upon an entirely different footing; nature;
k. Courts will judicially notice the things belonging to the
Note: It is well settled that foreign laws do not prove almanac. Calendar of the periods within the calendar.
themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized l. Judicial Notice is taken of the fact that the Philippines
to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be is divided into provinces, municipalities, cities, and
alleged and proved. cities is divided into lots, blocks, streets;

f. No proof need be given of the seals of foreign maritime JURISPRUDENCE

and admiralty courts. By common consent and general usage,
the seal of a court of admiralty has been considered as
sufficiently authenticating its records;
g.
Judicial notice may be taken of petitioner's oath taking as
evidenced by a certification from the Records Officer of
the office of the Provincial Governor. The oath taking
partakes of an official act, while the certification is an
official act of an official of the Executive Department of the
government.( Lopez v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 103911)

Matters relating to:
1. Legislative Department
2. Executive Department
Courts are bound to take
judicial notice, as a
matter of law, of dates
when Congress begins
and closes its session,
the number, function,
privileges of its members;
Courts judicially
recognize all public
matters which will affect
the government of the
country. On this principle,
the accession and death
of the sovereign and
principal officers of the
state are recognized;
We uphold the submission that the factual defenses of
petitioner are matters within the concept of mandatory
judicial notice. While it is true that, as pontificated by the
Court a quo, factual defenses on the part of the accused
are evidentiary matters which may be presented only
during trial on the merits, the facts alleged by the accused
are facts admitted, whether directly or impliedly, in
pleadings of the prosecution.( Lopez v. Sandiganbayan,
GR No. 103911)
Section 2.Judicial notice, when discretionary, generally:
a. Matters which are of public knowledge;
- Judicial knowledge of facts is measured by general
knowledge of the same fact. A fact is generally known
when its existence or operation when it is accepted by
public without qualification or contention.

20
 The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and
discretion of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is
to be exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken
that the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable
doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the
negative. Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice
have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one
of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and
authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
(3) it must be known to be within the limits of the
jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in determining
what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that
of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is
limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of
general notoriety. (Latip vs. Chua)
Things of "common knowledge," of which courts take judicial
notice, may be matters coming to the knowledge of men
generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or
they may be matters which are generally accepted by mankind
as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned
demonstration. Thus, facts which are universally known, and
which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other
publications, are judicially noticed, provided they are of such
universal notoriety and so generally understood that they may
be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of
every person.( Latip vs. Chua, GR NO. 177809)
b. Matters capable of Unquestionable Demonstration
- This refers o facts, theories and conclusions which
have come to be established and accepted by the
specialists in the areas of natural science, natural
phenomena, technology, history, geography,
scientifically facts and other fields of scientific
knowledge.
c. Matters ought to be known by judges by reason of
their judicial function
Judicial Notice of Proceedings in Another Case.
GENERAL RULE: Court is not authorized to take judicial
notice of the contents of another case even if said case was
heard by he same judge.
Exception:
1. When in the absence of any objection, with the
knowledge of the opposing party, the contents of said
other case are clearly referred to by title and number in a
pending action and adopted or read into the record of the
latter;
2. when the original record of the other case or any part
of it is actually withdrawn from the archives at the court’s
discretion upon the request, or with the consent of the
parties and admitted as part of the record of the pending
case.
Note: Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere
personal knowledge of the judge is not judicial knowledge
of the court; judicial cognizance is taken only of those
matters which are “commonly” known.
SECTION 3 – JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN HEARING
NECESSARY
During the trial, the court on its own initiative, or on
request of a party, may announce its intention to take
judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to
be heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the
proper court, or its own initiative or on the 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 or in the case.
 PURPOSE OF HEARING
 To afford the parties reasonable opportunity to
present information relevant to the propriety of
taking such judicial notice or to the tenor of the
matter to be noticed.
 TIME WHEN JUDICIAL NOTICE MAY BE
TAKEN:
 During trial
 After trial and before judgment
 On appeal
 In all instances, the court may act on its own
initiative or on request of a party.
 JUDICIAL NOTICE TAKEN DURING TRIAL
DISTINGUISHED FROM THAT TAKEN AFTER
BUT BEFORE JUDGMENT OR ON APPEAL
 DURING TRIAL – any matter
 AFTER TRIAL BUT BEFORE JUDGMENT OR
ON APPEAL – Any matter if such decisive of a
material issue in the case.
 DETERMINATION OF FACTS SUBJECT OF
JUDICIAL NOTICE –
The court may refer to appropriate and reliable
sources of information. Where judicial notice
must be taken of a fact, the court is required to
pursue inquiries sufficient to make that
knowledge real as far as possible.
SECTION 4 – An admission, verbal or written, made by or a
party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does
not require proof of the admission may be contradicted only by
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made.
 JUDICIAL AND EXTRA JUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS DEFINED.
21
 JUDICIAL – is one made in the pleadings filed or
in the progress of a trial. It is conclusive upon the
party making them.
EXTRA JUDICIAL ADMISSION – one made out
of court. As a rule, is disputable except on
estoppel.
 FORM OF JUDICIAL ADMISSION –
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS MAY BE:
1. Oral as a verbal waiver of proof made in
open court
2. A withdrawal of a contention
3. A disclosure made before a court
4. Admission made by a witness in the course
of testimony or deposition
5. In writing as in pleadings
6. Bill of particulars
7. Stipulation of facts
8. Request for admission
9. Judicial admission contained in an affidavit
used in a case.
 CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDICIAL ADMISSION
Cannot be contradicted unless previously shown
to have been made through a palpable mistake
or that no such admission was made.
 ADMISSION IN PLEADINGS –
 May be made by an express acknowledgement
of some fact or facts set forth in the pleading of
the opposite party.
 By failure to deny or otherwise controvert the
truth of such fact or facts.
 NO ADMISSION ARISES WHEN DEFENDANT
IS ADJUDGED IN DEFAULT.
Such failure to answer does not amount to an
admission of the facts alleged in the complaint.
 BILL OF PARTICULARS –
Written statements in nature of bill of particulars,
purporting to be signed by a party’s attorney, and
which the opposing party claims was delivered to
his counsel as a bill of particular was been held
admissible.
 VERIFIED AND UNVERIFIED PLEADINGS –
Verification is considered essential to the
admission of statements in a pleading against the
pleader. If a party does not verify, authorize or
adopt a pleading, allegations thereof are not
admissible against him.
 ADMISSIONS BY ATTORNEY –
Admissions by counsel made in the trial of a
cause may be conclusive on the party unless
withdrawn or set aside by the court for good
cause shown as mistake or lack of authority.
 ADMISSIONS IN WITHDRAWN, SUPERSEDED
OR AMENDED PLEADING
The pleading which has been withdrawn or
stricken out or superseded by amendment, still
remain as statements seriously made and are
admissible in evidence, on behalf of the opposite
party as admissions by the pleader, where he is a
party to the subsequent litigation, where the
statements are material and relevant to the
issues in connection with which they are sought
to be introduced, and where, in case of a
pleading withdrawn by leave of court, no order is
made relieving the pleader from the admissions
made; and the probative force of such statements
has even been given a prima facie value.
 ADMISSIONS IN STIPULATION OF FACTS –
Stipulations of facts in a case are agreements or
admissions regarding certain facts included in the
litigation and are conclusive between the parties.
Acts or facts admitted do not require proof and
cannot be contradicted, unless it be shown that
the admission was made through a palpable
mistake, for parties are not allowed to gain say
their own acts or deny rights which they have
previously recognized. A party may not withdraw
from an agreement of facts without the consent of
the other party or without leave of court on
justifiable reasons.
 BINDING EFFECT OF STIPULATION OF
FACTS –
A concession or stipulation as to a fact made for
the purpose of trial has the force and effect of an
established fact binding on the party making the
22
 same, as well as on the court, unless the court in
its reasonable discretion allows the concession to
be later withdrawn, explained, or modified if it
appears to have been made by improvidence or
mistake.
 AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS AND TESTIMONY
– In the first case, there is a judicial admission of
A judicial admission in an affidavit used in the
case is admissible against the party making or
adopting the affidavit, and it may also be
admitted in another action to which he is a party.
Statements made in a deposition, relevant to the
issues, may be admitted against the deponent as
admissions against the interest in the same or
another action to which he is a party, even
though he is present in court and able to testify,
or has testified
The testimony given by or for a party at the trial
of a case may be used against him as an
admission in the same, or on a subsequent trial,
or even in another action, provided such
testimony is material and relevant.
 PROOF OF ADMISSION IN PLEADING,
AFFIDAVIT OR DEPOSITION –
Where a pleading, affidavit or depositionis offered
in evidence, the statements relied on as
admissions and the qualifying statements must
be construed together. The party offering written
admissions is not stopped to disprove them.
 COMPROMISE AGREEMENT -
A judicial admission in a compromise agreement
submitted to the court cannot be contradicted
unless previously shown to have been made
through palpable mistake.
 STIPULATION OF FACTS IN CRIMINAL
CASES –
It is not proper to consider a case closed, or to
render judgment therein, by virtue of an
agreement entered into between the fiscal and
counsel for the accused with reference to facts
some of which are favorable to the defense, and
others related to the prosecution, without any
evidence being adduced or testimony taken from
the witnesses mentioned in the agreement; such
practice is not authorized and defeats the
purposes of the criminal law.
 JUDICIAL ADMISSION OF A FACT
DISTINGUISHED FROM AN ADMISSION THAT
A CERTAIN WITNESS, IF CALLED, WOULD
SO TESTIFY.
the facts, and they cannot be contradicted. In the
second case, it will only have the same effect as
if the witness had testified to the facts. Such
testimony of the party is free to contradict.
Constitutional Right not violated by inspection of scene of
crime, provided that the same is with consent of and
accompanied by counsel for the accused, it further appearing
that no evidence was taken during the inspection.
Information obtained on a view is independent evidence to
be taken into consideration by the curt in determining the
issues in the case.
Order denying or granting view not reviewable when it
appears that the condition of the premises or property has
changed since the time of occurrence in issue and before the
demand for a view, or that the facts involved are such that they
can be accurately described to the court by oral testimony, or
by the use of maps or diagrams with proper explanations, or
view would be unreasonable expensive or cause unreasonable
delay, or serve no useful purpose, unless here appears a clear
abuse of discretion.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2 Documentary evidence
DOCUMENT – any substance having any matter expressed or
described upon it by marks capable of
being read. If it is produced without regard to the message
which it contains, it is treated as real evidence.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- evidence supplied by written
instruments, or derived from the conventional symbols, such as
letters, by which ideas are represented on material
substances; documents; documents produced for the
inspection of the court or judge.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUEMNTARY EVIDENCE- subject to
the same basic rules on relevancy, materiality, exclusionary
rules and court discretion as determined by the issues in the
particular case. Identity and authenticity of the document must
be reasonably established as a pre-requisite to its admission.
IMPORTANT RULES ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-
1. Best Evidence Rule
2. Rule on Secondary Evidence
3. Parol Evidence Rule
4. Rule on Authentication and Proof of Documents
5. Inadmissibility of written document in an unofficial
language unless translated in English and
Filipino
1. Best Evidence Rule
23
BEST EVIDENCE or PRIMARY EVIDENCE- particular means
of proof which is indicated by the nature of the fact under
investigation as the most natural and satisfactory that affords
the greatest certainty of the fact in question and on its face
indicates that no better evidence remains behind.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE - is that rule which requires the
highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a
disputed fact.
Purpose of the rule requiring the production of the best
evidence: prevention of fraud, because if the best evidence is
not presented then the presumption of suppression of evidence
will be present.
Best evidence rule applies only when
the purpose of the proof is to establish the terms of
writing, therefore NOT applicable to external or collateral facts
about the document such as its existence, execution or
delivery.
People v. Tandoy
(1990)
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. An
objection by the party against whom secondary evidence is
sought to be introduced is essential to bring the best evidence
rule into application. Where secondary evidence has been
admitted, the rule of evidence might have been successfully
invoked if proper and timely objection had been taken
WHAT CONSTITUTES THE ORIGINAL:
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of
which are the subject of inquiry;
(b) When a document is in two or more copies
executed at or about the same time, with identical
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as
originals; and
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of
business, one being copied from another at or near
the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise
equally regarded as originals.
Note:
> Original may depend on the substantive law
applicable
> Original may depend on the act of the parties
>where there may be duplicate original, either is an
original ad may be used without accounting for
another
>Whenever a document is executed in several parts,
each part is a primary evidence
> Whenever a document is executed in counterpart,
each part executed by one or more of the parties only,
each counterpart is primary evidence as against the
parties who executed it
People vs Sto. Tomas
138 SCRA 206
The trial court correctly rejected the xerox copy of the marriage
certificate, since the admission would violate the best evidence
rule.
For the application of the best evidence, it is essential
that:
the original writing or if it is a private document, be first duly
identified, and a sufficient and a sufficient foundation be laid,
so as to entitle the writing to be admitted in evidence, and it
must be available to the opposite party for cross-examination.
Best Evidence Rule in Criminal Cases- In criminal cases,
where the issue is not only with respect to the contents of the
document but also as to whether such document actually
existed, the original itself must be presented.
US vs Gregorio
17 Phil 522
For only only presenting the Xerox copy of the falsified
documents, prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the
crime charged. In the absence of the original document, it Is
improper to conclude, with only copy of the said original in
view, that there has been a falsification of the document which
was neither found nor exhibited, because in such a case, even
the existence of such document may be doubted.
Non-production of the original document unless justified in
Section 3, gives rise to the presumption of suppression of
evidence.
Amended Documents- where a duplicate or copy is amended
or altered by the party or parties, it becomes the original.
Document executed in two or more identical contents each
one of the parts is primary evidence and the other need not be
proved.
Mechanically reproduced copies:
a) Carbon copy- admissible as duplicate original
when executed at the same time or about the
same time. Imperfect carbon copies, although
made at the same time as the original but if there
is something else to be done for it to be binding
or there is incomplete signature, it’s not the best
evidence.
b) Reproduction from the same matrix i.e.
mimeograph, hectograph- admissible as
duplicate original when produced from the same
matrix as original
c) Blueprints and vellum tracings- have been held to
be originals rather than copies
d) Telegraph and cable messages-
if the issue is the contents of the telegram
 as received by the addressee- then the
original dispatch is the copy of the message
sent to the addressee;
 as sent by the sender- the original is the
message delivered
if the issue is the inaccuracy of transmission,
 both telegrams as sent and received are
originals
e) Letter press copies- merely secondary evidence
as its prone to improper reproduction and are not
produced simultaneously as the original
24
 f) Thermofax- merely secondary evidence as it
lacks satisfactory reproduction as some portions
are not clearly printed
g) Photographs and Xerox- merely secondary
evidence since they are reproduced at a latter
time but if authenticated photostatic copy of
income tax returns, public and business records
are allowed as evidence
People vs Mangulabnan
52 OG 6532
At the trial, presented as evidence a post-mortem report of the
injuries received by the deceased. This was admitted over the
objection of the accused, who contend that a mere carbon
copy is inadmissible. The court ruled that the fact the post-
mortem report is a mere carbon copy is also of no moment for
it has been signed by the physician who executed the same
and his signature was identified b him at the witness stand.
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga vs Reyes
August 5, 1931
The provincial fiscal of Pampanga filed two informations for
libel against Guevarra. The informations alleged that the
defendant, with malicious intent, published on page 9 of the
weekly paper Ing Magumasid. The defendant demurred on the
ground of duplicity of informations, he having published only
one libelous article in the Ing Magumasid for July 13,
1930. The fiscal attempted to present as evidence for the
prosecution Exhibits A, B, C, and D, which are copies of
the Ing Magumasid containing the libelous article with the
innuendo. Counsel for the defendant objected to this evidence,
which objection was sustained. Petitioner contends that the
exhibits in question are the best evidence of the libel, the
subject matter of the information, and should therefore be
admitted.
Issue: Whether the exhibits are admissible.
Ruling: The rule of procedure which requires the production of
the best evidence, is applicable to the present case. And
certainly the copies of the weekly where the libelous article
was published, and its translation, constitute the best evidence
of the libel charged. The newspaper itself is the best evidence
of an article published in it.
Thus if the issue is the contents of the articles sent for
publication, the best evidence is the manuscript. But is if issue
is on what was actually published, then the best evidence is
the copy of the news paper.
Respondent judge of the CFI was required to admit Exhibits A,
B, C, and D, in question.
Manchester & Lawrence vs Fisk
(1856)
A copy of the standard tariff rate posted at the railway depots,
the court held them to be the best evidence in an action over a
railway freight charge as each of the printed copies as original
and the whole of the natre of duplicates, so that the proof of
anyone would be competent evidence of the contents of the
whole; there being necessary in the whole nature of the
process of printing strong presumptive evidence that the
impression from the same types must be similar.
Section 3. Original document must be produced;
exceptions
GENERAL RULE: when the subject of the inquiry is the
contents of the document, the original document must be
produced.
EXCEPTIONS: When secondary evidence be admitted
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
Compania Maritima vs Allied Free Workers Union
77 SCRA 24 (1977)
Facts: In 1952, Compania Maritima (CM) and Allied Free
Workers Union (AFWU) entered into a written contract
whereby the Union agreed to perform arrastre and stevedoring
work in Iligan, effective for one month.
It was stipulated that the Company would revoke the contract
before the expiration of the agreed term, if the Union failed to
render proper service. After a month, the contract was verbally
renewed. In 1954, the Union sent a letter to CM requesting to
recognize it as the exclusive bargaining unit, to load and
unload he cargo of its vessels in Iligan. CM ignored the
request. The Union subsequently filed in CIR a petition for
certification election. Despite the certification case, CM sent
notice to the Union for termination of their contract and entered
into a new contract with another stevedoring association.
CM assailed that the termination of the contract was due to
Union worker’s inefficiency and that the Company suffered
financial losses due to such service. To ascertain its annual
losses, CM’s manager hired auditors. CM relied only upon
such auditors’ report and presented in court only a summary of
damages. The sales invoices were not produced.
Issue: WON the non-submission as evidence of the records of
the alleged losses of the Company is excused because of the
rule exempting voluminous records from being produced in
court.
Ruling: The best evidence of the Company’s losses would
have been the sales invoices instead of the Manager’ oral
testimony. The rule that 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 in only the general result of the whole,
the original writings need not be produce, CANNOT BE
APPLIED because the voluminous character f the records was
NOT DULY ESTABLISHED. It is also a requisite for the
25
application of the rule that the records of accounts should be
made accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness
of the summary may be tested on cross-examination.
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 regarded as originals. For as
long as they are made within reasonable time, it is sufficient. A
much longer but reasonable delay and when entries appear to
have been made while the memory as to the transaction as
clear or the source of such knowledge was unimpaired, still
makes it admissible.
However, a book of account containing only a single entry, or
charge of money lent, which show no mutual recourse of
dealing between the parties, is not admissible.
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
A. OBJECT (REAL EVIDENCE)
SECTION 1, RULE 130
Object as evidence – object as evidence are those
addressed to the senses of the court. When an object
is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to,
examined or viewed by the court.
Source – This provision is a reproduction of Section
1, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court with the following differences:
a. The title of the section “View of an object,” has been
changed to “Object as evidence,” in the present provision;
b. The phrases “as to afford reasonable grounds of belief
respecting the latter; such object”; or its existence,
situation, condition, or character proved by witnesses, as
the court in its discretion may determine;” and “has such a
relation”, have been deleted in the present provision;
c. The phrase “Objects as evidence are those addressed to
the senses of the court” and the words “is relevant”; “it”;
“examined” have been added in the present provision.
Object (real) evidence defined – Object (real) evidence
is that which is addressed to the senses of the tribunal, as
where objects are presented for the inspection of the
court.
Object (real) evidence may consist of articles or persons,
which may be exhibited inside or outside the courtroom; it may
also consist in the mere inspection of an object; or in an
experiment.
Scope of object (real) evidence -- This source of
persuasion has been resorted to in a great number of
instances. A witness may use his own body, or an article, to
illustrate or explain the evidence. In the same way counsels,
to show its meaning on their theory of the case, may make any
use of the court room or furniture; and it has also been held
permissible to use the furniture from the room where a crime
was committed, arranged so as to illustrate the testimony of a
witness.
Object (real) evidence is not limited to that which may
be known by the sense of vision; it extends to what is
perceived by the senses of hearing, taste, smell or touch. Any
article made important by the evidence or by the nature of the
investigation may be produced for inspection, or where the
circumstances are such that it cannot be or should not be
brought to the court, it may be inspected at the place where it
is to be found. Inspection evidence of this character may
range over any line of human activity, as building or
mechanical trades, the medical or surgical profession, or
nautical affairs. A frequent application of the rule is found in
the production of the tools or implements with which as certain
act was, or is claimed to have been worn by a person at the
time of an occurrence in controversy.
Where properly identified and where relevant to a
material issue, objects such as the following have been
received in evidence:
a. In abortion cases, the instrument or medicine
with which the crime was committed, and the
clothing of the victim;
b. In arson, articles used in starting the fire, and
burned objects;
c. In any case where a weapon is used, the
weapon, including, if it is a firearm, bullets and
shells; weapons other than the one used, to show
intent; weapons found on or near the victim, to
show self-defense;
d. In cases involving an assault or a homicide, the
clothing of the victim to show the location of
wounds, the manner or means of death, the
relative positions of the victim and his assailant or
the distance between them, or to throw light on
any material issue; also the clothing of the
victim’s companion where relevant;
e. In homicide, the bones or flesh of the victim, to
show the character and location of wounds (it is
within the court’s discretion to order the victim’s
skull exhumed so it may be offered in evidence);
objects used to help hide the body;
f. In theft cases, the stolen goods, burglars’ tools,
other objects which help accomplish the theft;
g. In a hit-and-run case, headlight glass partly
recovered from the scene and partly from the
garage where repairs were made;
h. In a drunken driving case, liquor, tools to aid in its
manufacture, marked money used in its
purchase;
i. In liquor cases, the liquor, tools to aid in its
manufacture, marked money used in its
purchase;
j. In narcotics trials, the drug, a drug container, the
syringe, needle and spoon, marked money used
to purchase the drug;
26
 k. In fraud and cheating cases, any object which
shows how the result was accomplished;
l. In counterfeiting; the counterfeiting machine;
m. In gambling cases, the gambling paraphernalia;
n. In rape, any weapon used to subdue or intimidate
the victim, the clothing of the victim, the clothing
of the accused;
o. In sex cases other than rape, objects which throw
light on the crime;
p. The clothing of the accused, to identify him or to
throw light on other issues;
q. Any object which is used in accomplishing the
crime;
r. Drawings and maps which help explain the crime
or the defendant’s escape route;
s. Objects which illustrate a consciousness of guilt
on defendant’s part;
t. Objects which corroborate or illustrate verbal
testimony.
Reason for admissibility of object (real) evidence – to a
rational man of perfect organization the best and highest proof
of which any fact is susceptible is the evidence of his senses.
This is the ultimate test of truth, and is therefore the first
principle in the philosophy of evidence. Hence, the evidence of
one’s own senses, furnishes the strongest probability and
indeed the perfect and indubitable certainty of the existence of
any sensible fact.
Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It
speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.
Requisites for admissibility of object (real)
evidence – an object may be exhibited, examined or viewed
by the court when (1) it is relevant to the fact in issue, and (2)
the present condition of the object is the same at the time in
issue.
If, by some principle of relevancy, a fact offered to be
shown is not admissible, because irrelevant, it cannot be
shown, either in this or in any other way. For example,
whether a person’s color is black or white is best ascertained
by inspecting the person; but if his color when ascertained
would be irrelevant for the purpose concerned, an inspection to
learn his color would obviously be unnecessary, and therefore
improper. Thus, his color might be relevant to show his race-
ancestry, but not to show his state of health; in the former case
inspection would be allowed in the latter case not, the ruling in
each instance depending on the admissibility of the fact shown
by inspection. In a large number of instances this is the real
question.
Admission of clothing worn by plaintiff at time of
accident has been held improper where the fact of injury was
uncontroverted.
The present condition of an object offered may not be
the same as to be proper evidence of its former condition;
accordingly, autoptic preference is allowable only on the
assumption that the condition is the same or sufficiently similar.
Experiments to show the quality or operation of a
substance, a machine, etc., are often excluded because of the
dissimilarity of circumstances or because of probable
confusion of issues; and for this reason the exhibition of such
experiments before the tribunal may of course be forbidden.
As a general rule it seems essential that articles
shown to the court be connected, at least prima facie, with the
crime in issue. An article of personal property, the relevancy of
which has been shown by its identification with the subject-
matter of the crime, may be exhibited in the courtroom,
whether as direct evidence of a relevant fact, or to enable them
to understand the evidence or to realize more completely its
cogency and force, or to assist the court in solving a material,
controverted or doubtful point. Admission of visual, exhibitive
or demonstrative evidence is much within the discretion of the
court, and the extent of identification of such articles necessary
before admission varies with circumstances. The court may
inspect and smell the contents of a bottle properly identified
and admitted in evidence. Comparison of materials may also
be made by the court, aided by the evidence of expert
witnesses. So in case the quality of an article, or its
adaptability to a specific use or purpose, is in issue, a sample
may be shown to the court, together with a specimen of a like
material which is shown to be of good quality or adapted to the
required purpose, and the court may then make a comparison
to ascertain possible points of difference.
Exhibition of person – Trial courts, in actions to
recover damages, have an inherent discretionary power to
order a reasonable physical examination of the plaintiff to be
made before trial by competent physicians and surgeons
whenever such examination is necessary to ascertain the
nature, extent, or permanency of alleged injuries. Trial courts
also are generally deemed to have power to compel the
exhibition of the plaintiff’s person, under proper restrictions, in
the trial of a personal-injury action; and it is within the
discretion of the trial judge, when the physical condition of a
party is in question, as in personal-injury actions, to permit the
injured party to exhibit his person to the court in order to show
the extent and nature of his injury. Such exhibitions of part of
the plaintiff’s person are often permitted without objections.
Under the rule stated, the plaintiff may be permitted to exhibit
an arm, hand, leg, foot, and other parts of the body, such as
the shoulder, head, etc., provided the exhibition is not
objectionable on the ground of indecency. Where an arm or a
leg has been amputated, the exhibition of the naked remnant
may be permissible.
The extent to which one may be allowed to exhibit his
person to the court on the trial is a matter largely of discretion
of the court. If it appears that the exhibition by the plaintiff
would necessitate an exposure which would be indecent, the
court, in the exercise of its discretion, should not permit the
exhibition before the court.
Where an issue as to personal injuries or disability is
involved, the injured person may be permitted to exhibit to the
court the wound or injury, or the member or portion of his body
27
on which such wound or injury was inflicted. Thus, the court
has permitted the exhibition of an ankle, a knee, a foot, a leg,
an arm, a hand, an eye socket, and various other parts of the
body. A similar exhibition may be made where the injury has
resulted in the death of the injured person or the loss of a
member or part of his body.
Indecency or impropriety as ground for
disallowing the introduction of object (real) evidence;
exception – when the object produced as evidence is
indecent, or improper, it should be excluded, unless the same
is necessary for ascertaining the truth.
But when justice and the discovery of truth, are at
stake, the ordinary canons of modesty and delicacy of feeling
cannot be allowed to impose a prohibition upon necessary
measures. If such matters were not unshrinking discussed and
probed, many kinds of crime would remain unpunished.
Nevertheless, needless spectators having no responsibility for
the course of justice may well be avoided. Where it is a
question of what would otherwise be an indecency, two
limitations seems appropriate: (a) there should be fair
necessity for inspection, the trial court to determine; (b) the
inspection should take place apart from the public courtroom,
in the sole presence of the tribunal and the parties.
Introduction of object (real) evidence for the
purpose of arousing undue prejudice – The object of all
evidence is to inform the trial tribunal of the material facts,
which are relevant as bearing upon the issue, in order that the
truth may be elicited and that a just determination of the
controversy may be reached. It is not objectionable, in these
cases, which the evidence may go beyond the oral narrative
and may be addressed to the senses; provided that it is kept
within reasonable limits by the exercise of a fair judicial
discretion. It should be only of a nature to assist the court to
an understanding of a situation, of an act, or to comprehend
objective symptoms resulting from an injury. Examples of this
class of evidence are frequent; in the viewing of the place of an
occurrence, in the exhibition of the person and of the marks, or
obvious evidences, of injuries sustained. Personal injuries
may be simulated and deception may be practiced in such
exhibitions; but that cannot more be prevented, than can
perjury in testimony. When, however, proof is attempted to be
made by allowing the plaintiff to act out upon a judicial stage
before the court what he or his physicians, have testified to be
some nervous affection, resulting from an injury, the exhibition
is improper because it is unfair. As something under the sole
control of the witness himself, it is beyond the ordinary tests of
examination. Nor does such evidence allow any record,
beyond the reporter’s notes of what he saw upon the trial. It is
intended to prejudice the mind of the judge and it is calculated
to affect the calm judicial atmosphere of a court of justice. The
plaintiff, in such cases, has sufficient advantages without
adding to them a spectacular illustration of his symptoms.
The exhibition of the weapons or tools of a crime, or
of the clothing or the mutilated members of the victim of the
crime, has often been objected to on grounds of Undue
Prejudice. The objection thus indicated seems to be two-fold.
First, there is a natural tendency to infer from the mere
production of any material object, and without further evidence,
the truth of all that is predicated on it. Secondly, the sight of
deadly weapons or of cruel injuries tends to overwhelm reason
and to associate the accused with the atrocity without sufficient
evidence. The objection in its first phase may be at least partly
overcome by requiring the object to be properly authenticated,
before or after the production; and this requirement is
constantly enforced by the courts. The objection in its second
phase cannot be entirely overcome, even by express
instruction from the Court; but it is to be doubted whether the
necessity of thus demonstrating the method and results of the
crime should give way to this possibility or undue prejudice.
No doubt such an effect may be occasionally and in an
extreme case be produced; and no doubt the trial court has a
discretion to prevent the abuse if the process. But, in the vast
majority of instances where such objection is made, it is
frivolous and there is no ground for apprehension.
Accordingly, such objections have almost invariably been
repudiated by the Courts.
Where it appears that the real evidence is produced
merely for the purpose of arousing feeling, admission has been
held error. For example, where the plaintiff, a little girl, sues for
the loss of her leg, and the defendant admits the fact of
amputation and the child is present in court, the introduction of
the amputated limb as preserved in spirits warrants a new trial.
Of such a case, the court said that, it may however, be
assumed that technically the rule of evidence authorized the
exhibition of the foot. Such rule, however, is without force
when the legitimate purpose for which the exhibit may be made
is light, and the strong tendency is to work improper and
illegitimate results. It is perfectly clear in the present case that
the direct tendency of the exhibition of this mangled foot,
coupled with the other considerations already noted, was to
arouse the prejudice and inflame the passions of the court into
an angry resentment against the author of the misfortune. This
condition far overbalanced any legitimate purpose for which
the exhibit might have been made, and made the exhibition of
this foot, under the circumstances of this case, improper.
Other grounds for denying application for the
production of object (real) evidence – Beyond question it
rests in the discretion of the court to deny applications for the
production of real evidence in cases where the order will cause
great inconvenience, or where, for other reasons, it is unjust.
Thus, in Mississippi case, the court refused to order the
exhumation of a dead body; although the defendant, an
insurance company, claimed that the deceased had made
admissions that he had in childhood received a severe injury to
the skull which could only be prove by an examination. It may
happen that it is impracticable to bring an animal into the room
where the court is sitting, and in such cases the examination
need not necessarily be has in the courtroom, so long as it is
under the direction of the court and in the presence of the
parties. Similar holdings may be found with reference to
articles of great weight, such as large steel bars.
Photographs – the courts take judicial notice that all
civilized communities rely on photographic pictures for
28
presenting resemblances of persons and animals, scenery,
natural objects, buildings, and other artificial objects. It is
accordingly well established that photographs of persons,
things, and places, when duly verified and shown by extrinsic
evidence to be faithful representations of the subjects as of the
time in question, are, in the discretion of the trial court,
admissible in evidence as aids to it in arriving at an
understanding of the evidence, the situation or condition of
objects or premises, the circumstances of an accident, or the
condition or identity of a person when any such matter is
relevant to the issues being litigated.
Where depositions 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 questions 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.
In the case of Rodelas vs. Aranza; G. R. No. L-58509
December 7, 1982:
The appellant Marcela Rodelas filed a petition for the
probate of the holographic will of Ricardo B. Bonilla and the
issuance of letter testamentary in her favor. However, it was
opposed on the following ground:
a.) Can a holographic will which was lost be proved
by means of a photostatic copy?
Held: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. It
is necessary that there be a comparison between sample
handwritten statements of the testator and the handwritten will.
But, a photostatic copy of a holographic will may be allowed
because comparison can be made with the standard writings of
the testator.
The facts as depicted by photographs are usually
reasonably correct representations and constitute evidence of
a satisfactory and conclusive nature.
Photographs of any place which may be viewed by
the trial court are admissible in evidence upon proof of their
exactness and accuracy.
The logic underlying the admission of photographs
which have been authenticated by the operator of the camera,
or by some other witness who can testify from personal
knowledge as to the accuracy of the representation, is drawn
principally from the cases admitting maps and diagrams.
There are, however, two fundamental distinctions between
diagrams, or drawings, and photographs, which emphasize the
prejudicial implications to the latter: (1) the photograph is
generally accepted by courts as an accurate machine-made
reproduction of nature; while the diagram or drawing is
recognized by them as man-made and considerably less
accurate; a slight inaccuracy or distortion of size, distance or
shape in a photograph is thus far more objectionable that an
error of similar degree in a diagram; (2) the vital, mirror-like
appearance of a photograph makes it capable of inciting
passions and prejudices of a court, whereas a lifeless map or
drawing of the same subject would not have this effect. Thus,
while photographs may be of a fairly similar evidential
character as diagrams, and maps, there is little room for
comparison as to their respective degrees of probative force.
The court has in effect an eye witness view of the subject
matter. Photographs are admissible in evidence in criminal
cases upon the same principles and rules governing their
admission in civil cases.
The test of admissibility is whether the photograph
accurately portrays the scene at the time of the crime, and the
photographer is not a necessary witness. Photographs of the
scene, taken several months after the crime was committed,
were properly admitted where it appeared that the condition of
the premises has not materially changed in the meantime.
If the correctness of the photograph as a likeness
shown prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who
made it or by other competent witnesses, to the effect that it
faithfully represents the object portrayed, it should go to the
court subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. Whether the
photograph is an accurate likeness then becomes a question
of fact to be determined by the court.
The photograph or must be relevant as well as
correct. Its relevancy will depend on the relevancy of the
scene or object it represents. If a photograph purports to
represent a relevant scene or object, but portrays it in a grossly
inaccurate manner, so that it practically represents something
else, and the scene or object would scarcely be recognized
thereby, the non-reliability of the photograph as a correct
likeness may almost be considered as producing irrelevancy.
But usually the question of relevancy is distinct from that of
correctness, and is for the judge exclusively. It is to be
determined upon the considerations which govern when the
relevancy of any other sort of evidence is corrected.
Photographs are received in evidence for the
following purposes:
a. To show the scene of the crime (the picture need
not show the complete premises) sometimes with
the body of the victim still at the scene;
b. To show the victim of an assault or a homicide;
c. To show the identity of persons alive or dead,
including the defendant and the victim or his
remains, even when decomposed;
d. To show wound or other physical injuries, or that
a child or an animal has been ill-treated or not
properly fed;
e. To show the fruits of the crime, contraband, and
the weapons used;
f. To supply facsimiles of public records;
g. To illustrate handwriting testimony and fingerprint
testimony;
h. To rebut testimony of the other side.
Use of devices to accentuate photographic
evidence – In many instances a photograph will not sufficiently
depict important details of a scene to give it significance in the
eyes of the court. This is especially true in cases involving skid
29
marks, scratches, gouges, and other marks left on the road by
tires or other parts of vehicles involved in a collision. In such
instances it is not an unusual practice to lay down sticks, rocks
or other objects to indicate or intensify such features of the
picture. These do not affect its admissibility when the presence
of the markers is verified and explained by the witnesses.
Obviously, when a photographic representation includes
foreign objects marking such details it is not sufficient that the
general accuracy of the photograph be verified. Someone
must also explain why the objects appear therein and what
they purport to represent or mark. If the object is nothing more
than a marker, the exhibit is not subject to the objection that it
is a “posed” picture for it does not purport to recreate a bygone
scene. An example of this would be the placing of a yardstick
to indicate the distance between the ground and rear fender of
the cat involved in a fatal hit and run accident.
Enlargements – Although magnification that
constitutes distortion may be objectionable, it is no valid
objection to the introduction of the photograph that it is an
enlargement made from an original. Enlargements are, of
course, subject to the usual tests of accuracy and relevancy
that any photograph would be.
Color pictures – color photographs or slides are
admissible on the same basis as ordinary black and white
pictures. The same test is applies by courts, the test of
probative value. The color tends to be regarded as a more
faithful type of representation that black and white
photographs.
Aerial photographs – Aerial photographs, depicting
ground areas pertinent to the particular issue, are held
admissible upon the same foundation basis as other
photographs.
X-ray – In one way or another, X-rays are perhaps
the modality of medical treatment or diagnosis most commonly
appearing in litigation. Diagnostic X-ray films often provide
counsel with his best source of objective proof of his client’s
injuries, establishing in a manner that all can see that plaintiff’s
leg bones indeed were fractured a year before trial, and the
like. Even when X-ray films do not reveal their secrets clearly
enough for a court to understand them without expert
interpretation, they nevertheless comprise a means of dramatic
persuasion often of inestimable value.
The same rules and principles which apply to ordinary
pictures are applicable to an X-ray photograph, although
subject to explanation or interpretation by experts in order to
make them intelligible to the court.
Motion pictures – Principles underlying admissibility
of talking motion pictures are not different from those
governing the admissibility of still pictures and phonograph
records. It is a matter of common knowledge that motion
pictures are no longer a novelty. They are constantly used for
commercial and scientific purposes. The talking motion
picture, or movie tone, as it is technically known, results merely
from adaption of the scientific processes used in producing
photographic records in order that words spoken, or sounds
produced at the time of the taking of the picture, may be
reproduced with the picture. The movie tone, in basic
characteristics, is no different from ordinary photography, in
regard to the visual pictures reproduced, and on the other
hand, from phonographic records, in regard to the auditory
recording of sound. A movie tone, duly authenticated as a true
portrayal of the actions and words of a defendant at the time it
was taken is admissible evidence.
The question of permitting a motion picture to be
displayed before the court is wholly within the discretion of the
court, and where the picture does not amplify matters, no
reversible error is committed in refusing to allow its admission
or display as evidence.
Authentication of motion pictures ordinarily includes
(1) evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the taking of
the film; (2) the manner and circumstances surrounding the
development of the film; (3) evidence in regard to the
projection of the film; (4) testimony by the person present at
the time the motion pictures were taken that the pictures
accurately depict the events as he saw them when that
occurred.
Video tape – The use of the video tape in the
courtroom have become more commonplace in recent times.
A Michigan court has said: “A video tape is nothing more than
a motion picture synchronized with a sound recording.
Therefore, a complete video tape may be received into
evidence if the offering party lays the foundation necessary to
admit a motion picture and the foundation necessary to admit
sound recording. Thus, where it is testified that the video tape
is a true and accurate representation of what it is purported to
represent, it is sufficient authentication. Video tapes have
been admitted for confessions, admissions, lineups, crime
scenes, witness’s testimony, drinking driver’s condition and
even to show the actual commission of the crime.
Diagrams, sketches and maps – Pencil, pen and ink
drawings and maps have been received to identify or explain
localities or positions of objects. Though they are received as
primary evidence appealing to the eyes of the court under the
rule admitting photographs, they differ from the latter in that
their accuracy as portraits or likeliness must be affirmatively
shown by the testimony of the artist or other competent
witness. There is no presumption of correctness founded on
general use and employment, or on their being mechanical
reproductions by a process which the court will judicially notice,
as exists in the case of photographs. The witness called to
prove their correctness must testify of his own knowledge that
they faithfully represent the object depicted, and their
accuracy, if disputed, is a question for the court, turning upon
the credibility of the witnesses
The draftsman of the map must testify as to its
accuracy, but any other witnesses may refer to it while
testifying, to illustrate his testimony. It is not material by whom
the map or diagram was prepared providing that he can testify
that the map or diagram is accurate and based on knowledge
derive from his own investigation.
30
 The use of diagrams, models and casts as testimony
of the objects represented rests fundamentally upon the theory
that they represent a method of pictorial communication of a
qualified witness which he may use of instead of, or in addition
to, some other method. Evidence of this character is helpful in
aiding the court to visualize the objects and scenes in the
action. Thus a model of a machine, a mechanical device or a
bridge, may be submitted to the court to aid them in
understanding how an event occurred or might have been
prevented. This type of evidence is properly described as
illustrative evidence. It is a type of demonstrative evidence
especially useful to police officers and other witnesses in
describing traffic accident scenes.
Fingerprints, palm prints, footprints, tracks, etc. –
A method of proof now commonly resorted to in providing
identity is in the use of evidence as to the correspondence or
similarity of the fingerprints, palm prints and footprints.
Authenticated fingerprints, palm prints, or footprints or
photographs thereof of a person may be introduced in
evidence and compared with other fingerprints, palm prints, or
footprints found at or near the scene of the crime. This
comparison is usually made by experts.
Testimony concerning tracks and footprints discovered near
the scene of crime is admissible if a connection with defendant
by means of comparison or otherwise is shown. A comparison
of footprints, proved to have been made by the prisoner, with
other tracks or footprints found near the scene of the homicide
is relevant, but the opinion of the witness that footprints near
the scene of the crime were those of the accused not based on
a comparison, is not admissible. The witness generally must
have made some actual comparison of the footprint – not just
looked at it.
The correspondence of footprints to shoes, feet or other
footprints is a matter not restricted to expert opinion. A witness
may give his opinion as to the correspondence of footprints to
shoes, feet or other footprints after testifying as to the
measurements or peculiarities thereof upon which such opinion
is based.
Phonograph and tape recordings – Sound
recordings are generally admitted in evidence where a proper
foundation has been laid to assure the authenticity of the
recording. The phonograph, the Dictaphone, the talking
motion picture machine, and similar recording devices, with
reproducing apparatus, are now in such common use that the
verity of their recordingand reproducing sounds, including
those made by the human voice in conversation, is well-
established; and as advances in such matters of scientific
research and discovery are mad and generally adopted, the
courts will be permitted to make use of them by way of
present-evidentiary facts.
Voiceprints (spectrograms) – It is established law
that an accused person in lawful custody may be required to
demonstrate his voice for identification purpose on the same
grounds that he may be subjected to fingerprinting,
photographing, measurements, and the like. This can be done
through line-ups, tape recordings, video tape, or other similar
methods, in addition to speaking in court.
Another method of voice identification has been
developed in recent years called “voice print” or
“spectrograms”. This device consists of a magnetic recording
device, a variable electronic filter, a paper-carrying drum which
is coupled to the recording device, and an electronic stylus that
marks the paper as the drum rotates. Spectrograms can be
compared point for point to determine if any significant
similarities exist. It is based on the theory that no two persons
have exactly the same physical voice properties.
Personal appearance of a person – It has been held
that to determine whether a person is an alien or not, his
personal appearance, ethnological and racial characteristic,
language, customs, dress and manners may be taken into
consideration. The age of a person may also be determined
by his personal appearance. The resemblance between a
minor and his alleged father is competent and material
evidence to establish parentage. Of course, the absence of
such resemblance would not be sufficient to show that
parentage does not exist.
The accused cannot object if he be identified in open
court without being required to stand. A direction to a witness
to look about the court and point out a person in court who he
thinks committed the crime is always proper. The court or the
prosecuting attorney may even point out the accused and ask
a witness if that is the person who committed the crime. If the
accused shall voluntarily stand up and so thus be identified by
a witness pointing him out, he should not be granted a new trial
upon the ground that he has been compelled to testify as
against himself. And it has been held merely directing the
accused to stand up for identification is not compelling him to
be a witness against himself, nor is the bringing of the
defendant into court for inspection or identification or dressed
in clothes connected with the crime. It has been held in some
cases, however, that to go father and require accused to do
some affirmative act, such as putting on clothing found at the
scene of the crime, violates his constitutional rights.
Experiment – In instances where it is necessary to
show the condition or quality of a certain article or substance,
the thing itself is the most powerful evidence that can be
produced; it may be introduced in evidence as supplementing
the testimony of witnesses, or as direct evidence when
properly identified. Evidence of the result of an actual
experiment or test is admissible to aid in determining the
issues in a case where it is shown that the conditions under
which the experiment or test was made were the same or
similar to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the
occurrence involved in the controversy. Such evidence should,
however, be admitted only where it is obvious to the court from
the nature of the experiments that the court will be enlightened,
rather than confused.
31
 When evidence of an experiment is not admissible
– Evidence of experiments performed is admissible in both civil
and criminal cases when the judge, in his discretion, is of the
opinion that the evidence is beneficial, and that it does not tend
to distract or confuse. On the other hand, tests and
experiments are not without danger. Obviously, if the
experiment is too complicated to afford any fair inference, or if
it cannot be performed in such a manner as fairly to illustrate
the fact to be found, it should be excluded. If the trial judge,
exercising reasonable judgment, concludes that evidence of
such experiment is more likely to confuse than to shed light
upon the matter in dispute, he may exclude such evidence. It
is plain that evidence of an experiment whereby to test the
truth of testimony that a certain thing occurred is not
admissible where the conditions attending the alleged
occurrences and the experiments are not shown to be similar.
Mode and place of presentation and inspection –
No distinction shall be taken as regards the mode of
presentation by the party. An object may be merely set forth
for inspection, or some experimental process may be
conducted in the tribunal’s presence; whether the mode
involves a showing or doing, neither is in itself objectionable.
Nor is any distinction to be taken as to the mode of inspection
by the tribunal. It may merely employ its senses directly; or it
may use some suitable mechanical aid, such as a microscope;
and it may merely look on, or it may take an active share in the
process of experimentation. Nor is there any distinction as to
the place of inspection; the thing may be brought into the court,
or the tribunal may go to the place where the thing is.
Object must be inspected in open court and in the
presence of the defendant – When the trial court is of the
opinion that the ends of justice will be advanced by permitting
the introduction of an object in evidence, the court may permit
its examination or inspection, but such examination or
inspection must be in open court, and in the presence of the
defendant, and at all times subject to the control of the court.
The rule permitting an inspection by the judge of places or
premises, when in his judgment the ends of justice will be
promoted thereby, is simply an extension of the power of
inspection to places and premises which cannot be brought
into court.
Ocular inspection or view of an object out of court
– where the object in question cannot be produced be
produced in court because it is immovable or inconvenient to
remove, the natural proceeding is for the tribunal to go to the
object in its place and there observe it. This process,
traditionally known as a “view” has been recognized as an
appropriate one. It should be remembered, however, that
whether or not an ocular inspection or view of an object out of
the court should be made, rest entirely on the sound discretion
of the trial court. The inconvenience of adjourning court until a
view can be had, or of postponing the trial for the purpose, may
suffice to overcome the advantages of a view, particularly
when the nature of the issue or of the object to be viewed
renders the view off small consequence.
Ocular inspection or view must be made in the
presence of, or with notice to the parties – The inspection
or view outside the court room should be made in the presence
of the parties or at least previous notice to them in order that
they may show the object to be viewed. Such inspection or
view is a part of the trial, inasmuch as evidence is thereby
being received, which is expressly authorized by law. Thus, it
is error for the judge to go alone to the land in question, or to
the place where the crime was committed and take a view,
without previous knowledge or consent of the parties.
Constitutional Right not violated by inspection of
scene of crime – Provided that the same is with consent of
and accompanied by counsel for the accused, it further
appearing that no evidence was taken during the inspection.
Information obtained on a view is independent
evidence –To be taken into consideration by the curt in
determining the issues in the case.
Order denying or granting view not reviewable –
When it appears that the condition of the premises or property
has changed since the time of occurrence in issue and before
the demand for a view, or that the facts involved are such that
they can be accurately described to the court by oral
testimony, or by the use of maps or diagrams with proper
explanations, or view would be unreasonable expensive or
cause unreasonable delay, or serve no useful purpose, unless
here appears a clear abuse of discretion.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Section 2 Documentary evidence
DOCUMENT – any substance having any matter
expressed or described upon it by marks capable of
being read. If it is produced without regard to the message
which it contains, it is treated as real evidence.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- evidence supplied by
written instruments, or derived from the conventional symbols,
such as letters, by which ideas are represented on material
substances; documents; documents produced for the
inspection of the court or judge.
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUEMNTARY EVIDENCE-
subject to the same basic rules on relevancy, materiality,
exclusionary rules and court discretion as determined by the
issues in the particular case. Identity and authenticity of the
document must be reasonably established as a pre-requisite to
its admission.
IMPORTANT RULES ON DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE-
1. Best Evidence Rule
2. Rule on Secondary Evidence
3. Parol Evidence Rule
32
 4. Rule on Authentication and Proof of Documents
5. Inadmissibility of written document in an unofficial
language unless translated in English and
Filipino
2. Best Evidence Rule
BEST EVIDENCE or PRIMARY EVIDENCE- particular
means of proof which is indicated by the nature of the fact
under investigation as the most natural and satisfactory that
affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question and on its
face indicates that no better evidence remains behind.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE - is that rule which requires the
highest grade of evidence obtainable to prove a
disputed fact.
Purpose of the rule requiring the production of the
best evidence: prevention of fraud, because if the best
evidence is not presented then the presumption of suppression
of evidence will be present.
Best evidence rule applies only when
the purpose of the proof is to establish the terms of
writing, therefore NOT applicable to external or collateral facts
about the document such as its existence, execution or
delivery.
People v. Tandoy
(1990)
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. An
objection by the party against whom secondary evidence is
sought to be introduced is essential to bring the best evidence
rule into application. Where secondary evidence has been
admitted, the rule of evidence might have been successfully
invoked if proper and timely objection had been taken
WHAT CONSTITUTES THE ORIGINAL:
(a) The original of the document is one the contents of
which are the subject of inquiry;
(b) When a document is in two or more copies
executed at or about the same time, with identical
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as
originals; and
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of
business, one being copied from another at or near
the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise
equally regarded as originals.
Note:
> Original may depend on the substantive law
applicable
> Original may depend on the act of the parties
>where there may be duplicate original, either is an
original ad may be used without accounting for
another
>Whenever a document is executed in several parts,
each part is primary evidence
> Whenever a document is executed in counterpart,
each part executed by one or more of the parties only,
each counterpart is primary evidence as against the
parties who executed it
People vsSto. Tomas
138 SCRA 206
The trial court correctly rejected the xerox copy of the marriage
certificate, since the admission would violate the best evidence
rule.
For the application of the best evidence, it is essential
that:
the original writing or if it is a private document, be first duly
identified, and a sufficient and a sufficient foundation be laid,
so as to entitle the writing to be admitted in evidence, and it
must be available to the opposite party for cross-examination.
Best Evidence Rule in Criminal Cases – In criminal
cases, where the issue is not only with respect to the contents
of the document but also as to whether such document actually
existed, the original itself must be presented.
US vs Gregorio
17 Phil 522
For only only presenting the Xerox copy of the falsified
documents, prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the
crime charged. In the absence of the original document, it Is
improper to conclude, with only copy of the said original in
view, that there has been a falsification of the document which
was neither found nor exhibited, because in such a case, even
the existence ofsuch document may be doubted.
Non-production of the original document unless
justified in Section 3, gives rise to the presumption of
suppression of evidence.
Amended Documents- where a duplicate or copy is
amended or altered by the party or parties, it becomes the
original.
Document executed in two or more identical
contents each one of the parts is primary evidence and the
other need not be proved.
Mechanically reproduced copies:
h) Carbon copy- admissible as duplicate original
when executed at the same time or about the
same time. Imperfect carbon copies, although
made at the same time as the original but if there
is something else to be done for it to be binding
or there is incomplete signature, it’s not the best
evidence.
i) Reproduction from the same matrix i.e.
mimeograph, hectograph- admissible as
duplicate original when produced from the same
matrix as original
33
 j) Blueprints and vellum tracings- have been held to
be originals rather than copies
k) Telegraph and cable messages-
if the issue is the contents of the telegram
 as received by the addressee- then the
original dispatch is the copy of the message
sent to the addressee;
 as sent by the sender- the original is the
message delivered
if the issue is the inaccuracy of transmission,
 both telegrams as sent and received are
originals
l) Letter press copies- merely secondary evidence
as its prone to improper reproduction and are not
produced simultaneously as the original
m) Thermofax- merely secondary evidence as it
lacks satisfactory reproduction as some portions
are not clearly printed
n) Photographs and Xerox-merely secondary
evidence since they are reproduced at a latter
time but if authenticated photostatic copy of
income tax returns, public and business records
are allowed as evidence
People vsMangulabnan
52 OG 6532
At the trial, presented as evidence a post-mortem report of the
injuries received by the deceased. This was admitted over the
objection of the accused, who contend that a mere carbon
copy is inadmissible. The court ruled that the fact the post-
mortem report is a mere carbon copy is also of no moment for
it has been signed by the physician who executed the same
and his signature was identified b him at the witness stand.
Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga vs Reyes
August 5, 1931
The provincial fiscal of Pampanga filed two informations for
libel against Guevarra. The informations alleged that the
defendant, with malicious intent, published on page 9 of the
weekly paper IngMagumasid. The defendant demurred on the
ground of duplicity of informations, he having published only
one libelous article in the IngMagumasid for July 13, 1930. The
fiscal attempted to present as evidence for the prosecution
Exhibits A, B, C, and D, which are copies of
the IngMagumasid containing the libelous article with the
innuendo. Counsel for the defendant objected to this evidence,
which objection was sustained. Petitioner contends that the
exhibits in question are the best evidence of the libel, the
subject matter of the information, and should therefore be
admitted.
Issue: Whether the exhibits are admissible.
Ruling: The rule of procedure which requires the production of
the best evidence, is applicable to the present case. And
certainly the copies of the weekly where the libelous article
was published, and its translation, constitute the best evidence
of the libel charged. The newspaper itself is the best evidence
of an article published in it.
Thus if the issue is the contents of the articles sent for
publication, the best evidence is the manuscript. But is if issue
is on what was actually published, then the best evidence is
the copy of the news paper.
Respondent judge of the CFI was required to admit Exhibits A,
B, C, and D, in question.
Manchester & Lawrence vs Fisk
(1856)
A copy of the standard tariff rate posted at the railway depots,
the court held them to be the best evidence in an action over a
railway freight charge as each of the printed copies as original
and the whole of the natre of duplicates, so that the proof of
anyone would be competent evidence of the contents of the
whole; there being necessary in the whole nature of the
process of printing strong presumptive evidence that the
impression from the same types must be similar.
Section 3. Original document must be produced;
exceptions
GENERAL RULE: when the subject of the inquiry is the
contents of the document, the original document must be
produced.
EXCEPTIONS: When secondary evidence be admitted
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
CompaniaMaritimavsAllied Free Workers Union
77 SCRA 24 (1977)
Facts: In 1952, CompaniaMaritima (CM) and Allied Free
Workers Union (AFWU) entered into a written contract
whereby the Union agreed to perform arrastre and stevedoring
work in Iligan, effective for one month.
It was stipulated that the Company would revoke the contract
before the expiration of the agreed term, if the Union failed to
render proper service. After a month, the contract was verbally
renewed. In 1954, the Union sent a letter to CM requesting to
recognize it as the exclusive bargaining unit, to load and
unload he cargo of its vessels in Iligan. CM ignored the
request. The Union subsequently filed in CIR a petition for
certification election. Despite the certification case, CM sent
notice to the Union for termination of their contract and entered
into a new contract with another stevedoring association.
CM assailed that the termination of the contract was due to
Union worker’s inefficiency and that the Company suffered
financial losses due to such service. To ascertain its annual
34
losses, CM’s manager hired auditors. CM relied only upon existence and
such auditors’ report and presented in court only a summary of the cause of
damages. The sales invoices were not produced. its
unavailability
Issue: WON the non-submission as evidence of the records of without bad
the alleged losses of the Company is excused because of the faith on his
rule exempting voluminous records from being produced in part, may
court. prove” and
the words
Ruling: The best evidence of the Company’s losses would “document”;
have been the sales invoices instead of the Manager’ oral “the offeror”;
testimony. The rule that when the original consists of “testimony”;
numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be “in the order
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact stated”
sought to be established in only the general result of the whole,
the original writings need not be produce, CANNOT BE
APPLIED because the voluminous character f the records was 2. Secondary evidence explained.
NOT DULY ESTABLISHED. It is also a requisite for the Definition:
application of the rule that the records of accounts should be
a. That which shows that better, or primary
made accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness
of the summary may be tested on cross-examination. evidence exists as to the proof of the fact in
question.
When an entry is repeated in the regular course of b. It is that class of evidence which is relevant to the
business, one being copied from another at or near the time of fact in issue, it being first shown that the primary
the transaction, all the entries are regarded as originals. For as evidence of the fact is not obtainable.
long as they are made within reasonable time, it is sufficient. A c. Performs the same function as that of primary
much longer but reasonable delay and when entries appear to evidence but is LESS RELIABLE and WORTHY
have been made while the memory as to the transaction as OF BELIEF
clear or the source of such knowledge was unimpaired, still
Ex. A warrant itself is better evidence of what it
makes it admissible.
contains than a copy of it
A check is better evidence of what it contains
However, a book of account containing only a single entry or
charge of money lent, which show no mutual recourse of than the stub
dealing between the parties, is not admissible. On why secondary evidence is admitted:

It is admitted upon the theory that the original cannot be

2. SECONDARY EVIDENCE produced by the party by whom the evidence is offered within a
reasonable time by the exercise of reasonable diligence.
SECTION 5, RULE 130
*This is applicable in both civil and criminal cases.
Sec. 5 . When original document is unavailable. — When the
original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot Rationale for requiring production of original, two-fold:
be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its
execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability 1. Copies and oral testimony are more prone to
without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a inaccuracy and subject to fraud.
copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic
2. The appearance of the document may furnish
document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order
stated. information as to its authenticity.
3. Requisites for the admissibility of secondary
evidence:
1. Source.—This provision is a reproduction of Section 4,
Rule 130 the Rules of Court with the following differences: a. Execution and existence of the original
Section 4 Section 5 b. Loss and destruction of the original or its non-
production in court
Title of “secondary “when original
the evidence when document is c. Unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith on
section original is lost unavailable” the part of the offeror
or destroyed”
Changes “and loss or deleted 4. Proof of due execution and existence of original
destruction, or Meaning of execution:
unavailability”; The accomplishment of a thing, the completion of an
“may be
actor instrument, the fulfilment of an undertaking
proved”;
“recollection”
Added: “or

35
  Even though the production of an original may be
excused because of loss or destruction, it is still
necessary to authenticate the absent document.
 Before proof of contents can be admitted, the
court should be satisfied of the existence and due
execution of the original in the same manner as if
the original were produced.
 Before a party can be permitted to introduce
secondary evidence of the contents of a written
instrument, satisfactory proof must be made of he
former existence of the instrument, and this
necessarily involves proof of its proper execution
or genuineness.
5. Due execution of lost ancient documents need not
be established.
Lost document is more than 30 years old-secondary
evidence of their contents is admissible without proof
of their execution
6. Proof of lost or destruction of original.
Destruction Loss
The thing no Signifies merely that it
longer exists cannot be discovered
But the two come together for consideration in this rule.
Test for the sufficiency of proof of loss:
Includes practically not only the cases of loss in the narrower
sense but also the cases in which destruction is more or less
explicitly put forward as the reason for non-production.
Destruction of the instrument may be proved by:
1. Any person knowing the loss
2. Anyone who has made, in the judgment of the court, a
sufficient examination in the place or places where
the document or papers of similar characters are
usually kept by the person in whose custody the
document was lost was, and has been unable to find
it
3. Who has made any other investigation which is
sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument is
indeed lost
*A REASONABLE PROBABILITY of its loss is sufficient, and
this may be shown by a BONAFIDE and DILIGENT SEARCH,
fruitlessly made, for it in places where it is likely to be found.
7. Proof of execution, loss or destruction of the
original writing recorded in a public registry
Before the record or a certified copy of the recital
made in a public registry of the contents of the
document, it is indispensable to establish the
following:
1. The document/deed really existed
2. It was duly executed
3. It was lost
8. Proof of loss dispensed with by admission
1. Where both parties admit that an instrument has
been lost, this is sufficient to warrant the
reception of secondary evidence.
2. The contents of an instrument may be proved
against a party by his admissions in writing,
without accounting for non-production of the
original document.
9. Proof of non-production in court
1. It is sufficient to show that it is deposited in a
place from which it cannot be removed for the
purpose of being produced in court;
2. Or that it is not in the possession or under the
control of the party seeking to show the facts;
3. He is unable to produce it within a reasonable
time after the exercise of reasonable diligence.
*When the original of the document e.g. receipt,
cannot be produced in court, the Photostat copy
thereof is admissible as evidence.
10. Absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror
1. Secondary evidence is inadmissible when the
party offering it had himself destroyed the
original, with the object of preventing its
production in court, for in such a case, secondary
evidence of its contents could probably be
regarded as in all likelihood false or misleading.
2. If destruction was done in the ordinary course of
business or by mistake, or where the proponent
first removes, to the satisfaction of the court any
reasonable suspicion of fraud, secondary
evidence is admissible.
*When primary evidence has been wilfully
destroyed, receipt of secondary evidence may
depend upon the reasons for the destruction, and
such evidence will not be received from the party
who destroyed the primary evidence.
*The burden of proving absence of bad faith falls
on the proponent.
11. Diligent search for the document claimed to have
been lost must be shown.
There must be proof that a diligent search has been
made in the place where it is most likely to be found
and that the search has not been successful.
a. Where the paper is such that from its nature it
may be fairly assumed that it has some particular
place of deposit, that search should be search in
the utmost good faith, or the person in whose
36
 custody it is shown to have been should be
produced.
b. The testimony of the last custodian of the paper
or record should be produced; and, if this person
is shown to be dead, his representative or
successor should be called.
c. The general statement that diligence has been
used, or a mere perfunctory showing of some
diligence will not ordinarily suffice.
d. In every case, the testimony should show that the
party has in good faith exhausted all the sources
of information and means of discovery which the
circumstances naturally suggest and which have
been accessible to him.
GR: The loss or destruction of the document need not
be proved beyond the possibility of mistake; it is
enough if the testimony satisfies the court of the fact
with reasonable certainty. And the lost or destruction
may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
What constitute a diligent search:
The matter of the whole foundation or predicate for
admission of such secondary evidence is subject to
the wide discretion of the court although courts should
be cautious in the reception of such evidence.
General rule concerning proof of a lost
instrument:
1. Reasonable search shall be made for it in the
place where it was last known to have been;
2. If such search does not discover it, then inquiry
should be made of persons most likely to have its
custody; or
3. Who have some reason to know of its
whereabouts.
Important points:
1. The party must show that he has in good faith, and to
a reasonable degree, made an effort to discover the
instrument, and to that end has exhausted all sources
of information and means of discovery which were
open to him, and which in the nature of the case were
possible.
2. No fixed rule as to the necessary proof to establish
loss, or what constitutes reasonable search, can be
formulated.
3. The sole object of such proof is, to raise a reasonable
presumption, merely that the instrument is lost, and
this is a preliminary inquiry addressed to the
discretion of the judge.
12. Proof of true copy of original.
This may be shown by the testimony of a person who
has had the opportunity to compare the copy with the
original and found it to be correct.
In order that the testimony of such person may be
admissible, it is sufficient:
1. That the original was read to him by another
person while he read the copy and found that it
corresponded with what was read to him.
2. Where the person who made the original a short
time thereafter made a copy by writing down the
dictation of another reading from the original.
*When originals of a public document in the possession of the
parties have been proven lost, a CERTIFIED COPY of the
document made before it was lost is admissible as
SECONDARY EVIDENCE of its contents, and the BURDEN
OF PROOF is upon the PARTY QUESTIONING ITS
AUTHENTICITY to show that it is not a true copy of the
original.
Case:
1. Country Bankers Insurance Corp. vs. Antonio
Lagman G.R. No. 165487 July 13, 2011
A photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence,
is not admissible unless it is shown that the original is
unavailable. Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC.5 When original document is
unavailable. — When the original document
has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of
its execution or existence and the cause of
its unavailability without bad faith on his part,
may prove its contents by a copy, or by a
recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or by the testimony of witnesses
in the order stated.
Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary
evidence to prove the contents of the original, the offeror
must prove the following: (1) the existence or due
execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction of
the original or the reason for its non-production in court;
and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith
to which the unavailability of the original can be
attributed. The correct order of proof is as follows:
existence, execution, loss, and contents.
In the case at bar, Lagman mentioned during the
direct examination that there are actually four (4) duplicate
originals of the 1990 Bond: the first is kept by the NFA, the
second is with the Loan Officer of the NFA in Tarlac, the third
37

is with Country Bankers and the fourth was in his possession.
A party must first present to the court proof of loss or
other satisfactory explanation for the non-production of
the original instrument. When more than one original copy
exists, it must appear that all of them have been lost,
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before
secondary evidence can be given of any one. A
photocopy may not be used without accounting for the
other originals.
Despite knowledge of the existence and
whereabouts of these duplicate originals, Lagman merely
presented a photocopy. He admitted that he kept a copy of
the 1990 Bond but he could no longer produce it because he
had already severed his ties with Country Bankers. However,
he did not explain why severance of ties is by itself reason
enough for the non-availability of his copy of the bond
considering that, as it appears from the 1989 Bonds, Lagman
himself is a bondsman. Neither did Lagman explain why he
failed to secure the original from any of the three other
custodians he mentioned in his testimony. While he apparently
was able to find the original with the NFA Loan Officer, he was
merely contented with producing its photocopy. Clearly,
Lagman failed to exert diligent efforts to produce the
original.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
Section 9, Rule 130
Sec. 9 .Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms
of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered
as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or
add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading:
a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the
written agreement;
Parol evidence rule not applicable to strangers to the
instrument
- The parol evidence rule does not apply, and
may not properly be invoked by either party
to the litigation against the other, where at
least one of the parties to the suit is not a
b) The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
c) The validity of the written agreement; or
d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties
or their successors in interest after the execution of
the written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
General Rule
Parol Evidence Rule
- The so-called “parol evidence” forbids any
addition to or contradiction of the terms of a
written instrument by testimony purporting to
show that, at or before the signing of the
document, other or different terms were
orally agreed upon by the parties
- The existence of a valid contract is a
condition precedent to the application of the
rule.
- Where the terms of an agreement are
reduced to writing, the document itself, being
constituted by the parties as the expositor of
their intentions, is the only instrument of
evidence in respect to that agreement which
the law will recognize, so long as it exists for
the purpose of evidence.
- When an agreement has been reduced to
writing, the parties cannot be permitted to
adduce evidence to prove alleged practices
which to all purposes would alter the written
agreement. Whatever is not found in the
writing must be understood to have been
waived and abandoned. Soriano vs.
Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas,
125 Phil.80
- If oral testimony or parol evidence is
presented on facts or circumstances which
do not refer to the terms or contents of a
writing, the prohibition in the parol evidence
rule does not apply. Talosig vs. Vda. De
nieba, 43 SCRA 472.
Reason for the Rule
- The purpose of the rule is give stability to
written agreements and to remove the
temptation and possibility of perjury, which
would be afforded if parol evidence were
admissible. Castro vs. CA GR L-34613,
January 26, 1989
Parol evidence rule distinguished from best evidence
rule
party or a privy of a party to the written
instrument in question and does not base a
claim on the instrument or assert a right
originating in the instrument or the relation
established thereby. Lechugas vs. CA, 143
SCRA 335
38
 Parol evidence not admissible to validate a void
contract
- Where an instrument is on its face illegal or
void, because it shows a violation of some
statutory provision, or omits something which
the law makes essential to its validity, or for
any reason, parol evidence cannot be
admitted to contradict to show a violation of
the statute, to supply the omission, or
otherwise to make effectual that which the
law declares shall be of no effect, unless it
can be shown that the provision which
renders the instrument void was inserted by
mistake.
Waiver of benefit of rule
- by failure to object to the introduction of parol
evidence
Exceptions to parol evidence must be put in issue in
the pleading
Parol evidence rule applicable to wills
- That means that there is no evidence on the
terms of the will and of its attestation clause
other than the contents of the same
- If the ambiguity is patent (one which appears
upon the face of the instrument)
o extrinsic evidence not admissible
o testator’s intention is to be
ascertained from the words of the will,
taking into consideration the
circumstances under which it was
made, excluding oral declarations
- If the ambiguity is latent (one which is not
discoverable from a perusal of the will)
o extrinsic evidence admissible
 when it names a person as the
object of a gift or a thing as the
subject of it and there are two
persons or things that answer
such name or description
 where there is a mis-description of
the object or subject
Exceptions
When parol evidence is admissible
- When any of the following is put in issue in
the 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
Kinds of ambiguities in documents
a. patent - instrument on its face is intelligible
b. latent - the words of the instrument are clear,
but their application to the circumstances is
doubtful
Test of the difference between latent and patent
ambiguities
- A good test of the difference between the
two forms of ambiguities is to put the
instrument into the hands of an ordinarily
intelligent educated person. If on perusal he
sees no ambiguity, but there is nevertheless
an uncertainty from merely reading the
instrument, it is patent.
Latent or intrinsic ambiguity defined
- An uncertainty which does not appear on the
face of the instrument, but which is shown to
exist for the first time by the matter outside
the writing – may be explained or clarified by
parol evidence
Kinds of latent ambiguities
a. where the description of the devises or
the property devised is clear upon the
face of the will, but it turns out that there
is more than one estate or person to
which the description applies
b. where the devisee or property devised is
imperfectly or, in some respects,
erroneously described, so as to leave it
doubtful what person or property is
meant
Extrinsic or patent ambiguity not a justification for
reforming the writing
- The contest and every legitimate rule of
exposition may be listed and used in
obedience to the maxim ut res magisvaleat
quam pereat (That the thing may rather have
effect than be destroyed) but parol testimony
or extraneous proof of any kind, is deemed
to be inadmissible
- The rule expressly mentions intrinsic or
latent ambiguity and not extrinsic or patent
ambiguity as one of the exceptions to the
parol evidence rule.
- Reason for the rule: if the language be too
doubtful for any settled construction, by the
admission of parol evidence, you create and
do not merely construe the contract; you
attempt to do that for the party which he has
not chosen to do for himself.
Where both intrinsic and extrinsic ambiguities appear
in the writing
39
 - Where the words are all sensible, and have
a settled meaning but the same time
consistently admit of two interpretations.
- In such a case, parol evidence may be
admitted to show the circumstances under
which the contract was made, and the
subject-matter to which the parties referred
Rules governing the admissibility of parol evidence to
explain ambiguity (latent ambiguity)
a. Where the instrument itself seems to be
clear and certain the ambiguity arises from
some extrinsic or collateral matter, the
ambiguity may be helped by parol evidence.
(latent ambiguity)
b. Where the ambiguity consists in the use of
equivocal words designating the person or
subject-matter, parol evidence of collateral or
extrinsic matter may be introduced for the
purpose of aiding the court in arriving at the
meaning of the language used. (intermediate
ambiguity)
c. Where the ambiguity is such that a perusal
of the instrument shows plainly that
something more must be added before the
reader can determine what of several things
are meant, the rule is inflexible that parol
evidence cannot be admitted to supply the
deficiency.
Mistake in the written instrument
- To justify the reformation of a written
instrument upon the ground of mistake, the
concurrence of three things is necessary: (a)
that the mistake should be of fact; (b) that
the mistake should be mutual or common to
both parties to the instrument; (c) that the
mistake should be alleged an proved by
clear and convincing evidence.
a. Mistake of fact – The rule admitting
parol evidence in case a written
instrument, through mistake, does not
correctly express the intention of the
parties applies only in cases of mistake
of fact and not where a party has
contracted under a mistake of law.
b. Mistake must be mutual – The parties
must show that there was a valid
contract between them, which contract
is not correctly set forth in the writing to
be reformed.
c. Mistake should be alleged and proved –
the existence of mistake must be
alleged in the pleadings and the
allegations must be sustained by proof
Imperfection in the written agreement
- Parol evidence is admissible where there is
imperfection of the writing
Written agreement does not express the true intent
and agreement of the parties
- If a written contract is so ambiguous or
obscure in terms that all contractual intention
of the parties cannot be understood from a
mere inspection of the instrument, extrinsic
evidence of the subject matter of the
contract, of the relations of the parties to
each other, and the facts and circumstances
surrounding them when they entered into the
contract may be received to enable the court
to make a proper interpretation of the
instrument.
- Parol evidence is admissible where it is
offered, not for the purpose of varying the
terms of a written contract, but for the
purpose of explaining and showing that true
nature and character of the transaction
evidenced thereby.
Prior Contemporaneous Distinct greement
- The rule excluding parole evidence to vary or
contradict a writing but does not extend so
far as to preclude the admission of extrinsic
evidence to show prior or contemporaneous
collateral parole agreements between the
parties.
- Such evidence may be received regardless
of whether or not the written agreement
contains reference to such collateral
agreement.
Inducement in Written Agreement or Contract
- Where a parole contemporaneous
agreement was the inducing and moving
cause of the written contract, or where the
execution of a written agreement has been
induced on the faith of which the party
executed the writing and without which he
would not have executed it, evidence of the
oral agreement or stipulation may be given
although it may have effect of varying the
contract.
Proof of Fraud
- The rule which prefers written to unwritten
evidence does not so apply as to exclude the
latter when its object to prove that the writing
was fraudulently obtained and thereby avoid
the contract evidenced by it.
- Furthermore, the rule does not extend to
evidence offered to show that the contract
was made in furtherance of objects forbidden
by statute, by the common law or by public
policy.
Validity of Written Agreement
40
 - The prohibition does not apply where the
purpose of the parole evidence is to show
that no written contract ever existed and that
there never existed any consideration upon
which such an agreement could be founded.
- Parole Evidence Rule finds no application
where the validity of the document is the
very fact in dispute.
Subsequent Agreements
- The parole evidence rule does not apply so as to
prohibit the establishment by parole an agreement
between the parties to a writing entered into
subsequent to the time when the written instrument
was executed regardless such agreement varies or
contradicts.
- Reason: parties cannot be presumed to have
intended the written instrument to cover all their
possible subsequent agreements which for that
reason may be considered as separate transactions.
RECENTLY DECIDED CASES
Heirs of PolicronioUreta, Sr. vs. Heirs of LiberatoUreta
G.R. No. 165748. September 14, 2011
The applicability of the parol evidence rule requires that the
case be between parties to the written instrument in question
and their successors-in-interest.
Facts:
In his lifetime, Alfonso Ureta (Alfonso) begot 14
children, namely, Policronio, Liberato, Narciso, Prudencia,
Vicente, Francisco, Inocensio, Roque, Adela, Wenefreda,
Merlinda, Benedicto, Jorge, and Andres. The children of
Policronio (Heirs of Policronio), are opposed to the rest of
Alfonso's children and their descendants (Heirs of Alfonso).
Alfonso and four of his children, namely, Policronio, Liberato,
Prudencia, and Francisco, met at the house of Liberato. He
executed four (4) Deeds of Sale covering several parcels of
land in favor of his four children in order to reduce the
inheritance taxes. No monetary consideration was given,
Alfonso continued to own, possess and enjoy the lands and
their produce. Years after Alfonso’s and Policronio’s death, the
former’s heirs executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition,
which included all the lands that were covered by the four (4)
deeds of sale that were previously executed by Alfonso for
taxation purposes.
Believing that the six parcels of land belonged to their
late father, and as such, excluded from the Deed of Extra-
Judicial Partition, the Heirs of Policronio filed a Complaint for
Declaration of Ownership, Recovery of Possession, Annulment
of Documents, Partition, and Damages against the Heirs of
Alfonso. The RTC ruled in favor of the Heirs of Alfonso.
Likewise, the CA affirmed the finding of the RTC that the Deed
of Sale was void. It found the Deed of Sale to be absolutely
simulated as the parties did not intend to be legally bound by it.
Issue: Whether or not parol evidence rule may be properly
invoked by either party in the litigation against the other, where
at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of
a party to the written instrument in question and does not base
a claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the
instrument or the relation established thereby.
Held:
Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 9.Evidence of written
agreements. — When the terms of an
agreement have been reduced to writing, it
is considered as containing all the terms
agreed upon and there can be, between
the parties and their successors in
interest, no evidence of such terms other
than the contents of the written
agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to
modify, explain or add to the terms of
written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading:
(a)An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement;
(b)The failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent and agreement of
the parties thereto;
(c)The validity of the written agreement; or
(d)The existence of other terms agreed to
by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the written
agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) are applicable in the case at
bench.
The failure of the Deed of Sale to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties was clearly put in issue in
the Answer of the Heirs of Alfonso to the Complaint. It was
alleged that the Deed of Sale was only made to lessen the
payment of estate and inheritance taxes and not meant to
transfer ownership. The exception in paragraph (b) is allowed
to enable the court to ascertain the true intent of the parties,
and once the intent is clear, it shall prevail over what the
document appears to be on its face. As the true intent of the
parties was duly proven in the present case, it now prevails
over what appears on the Deed of Sale.
The validity of the Deed of Sale was also put in issue
in the Answer, and was precisely one of the issues submitted
to the RTC for resolution. The operation of the parol evidence
rule requires the existence of a valid written agreement. It is,
thus, not applicable in a proceeding where the validity of such
41
agreement is the fact in dispute, such as when a contract may
be void for lack of consideration. Considering that the Deed of
Sale has been shown to be void for being absolutely simulated
and for lack of consideration, the Heirs of Alfonso are not
precluded from presenting evidence to modify, explain or add
to the terms of the written agreement.
Indeed, the applicability of the parol evidence rule
requires that the case be between parties and their
successors-in-interest. In this case, both the Heirs of Alfonso
and the Heirs of Policronio are successors-in-interest of the
parties to the Deed of Sale as they claim rights under Alfonso
and Policronio, respectively. The parol evidence rule excluding
evidence aliunde, however, still cannot apply because the
present case falls under two exceptions to the rule, as
discussed above.
CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION OF
FREE WORKERS vs. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS, INC.
G.R. No. 190515. June 6, 2011
Theparol evidence rule, like other rules on evidence, should
not be strictly applied in labor cases.
Facts:
The then Acting Secretary of Labor Manuel G. Imson
ruled that the wage increases to be given are P10 per day
effective January 1, 2004 and P15 per day effective January 1,
2005. Respondent averred that the Secretary of Labor cannot
insist on a ruling beyond the compromise agreement entered
into by the parties.
Issue: Whether or not the parol evidence rule should be strictly
applied in labor cases.
Held:
In determining arbitral awards then, aside from the
MOA, courts considered other factors and documents
including, as in this case, the financial documents submitted
by respondent as well as its previous bargaining history and
financial outlook and improvements as stated in its own
website.
The appellate court's ruling that giving credence to
the "Pahayag" and the minutes of the meeting which were not
verified and notarized would violate the rule on parol evidence
is erroneous. Theparol evidence rule, like other rules
on evidence, should not be strictly applied in labor
cases. Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW v.
Interphil Laboratories, Inc. teaches:
[R]eliance on the parol evidence rule is
misplaced. In labor cases pending
before the Commission or the Labor
Arbiter, the rules of evidence prevailing
in courts of law or equity are not
controlling. Rules of procedure and
evidence are not applied in a very rigid
and technical sense in labor cases.
Hence, the Labor Arbiter is not precluded
from accepting and
evaluatingevidence other than, and even
contrary to, what is stated in the CBA.
MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 199430 March 21, 2012
Based on theparol evidence rule, there can generally be
noevidence of the terms other than the contents of the written
agreement
Facts:
Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of violation of
R.A. 3019, Sec. 3 (e) for acting in evident bad faith in the
purchase of the property sold by Glicerio Plaza as part of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines — Retirement Separation and
Benefit System (AFP-RSBS) Calamba Land Banking Project,
The Sandiganbayan found that the true consideration of the
sale made by Plaza to AFP-RSBS was only P227,460 as
stated in a unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale, and not the
disbursed amount of P1,531,564 as reflected in the bilateral
Deed of Sale.
Issue: Whether or not the unilateral Deed of Sale should be
the basis to determine the true consideration.
Held:
In any event, the finding that the true consideration
was only P227,460 and not P1,531,564 is supported by
the evidence on record. Here, the Sandiganbayan found that
the unilateral Deed of Sale was the official document used by
the buyer AFP-RSBS and seller Plaza in the registration of the
sale; as well as in the payment of the registration fee, transfer
tax, capital gains tax, and documentary stamp tax necessary to
effect transfer. This finding was not disputed by the petitioner.
At most, petitioner relied on the testimony of Plaza,
which referred to a consideration of P1,137,300 to P1,213,120
as purchase price of the property. However, based on
the parol evidence rule, there can generally be no evidence of
the terms other than the contents of the written
agreement; and even if this were the case, it still appears that
the consideration cannot be the P1,531,564 disbursed
according to the Status Transaction Report signed by
petitioner.
Neither did the seller or the buyer dispute the validity
of the unilateral Deed of Absolute Sale. The subsequent
bilateral Deed of Absolute Sale did not repeal or modify the
earlier sale either. As the deed was a valid agreement of
conveyance, notwithstanding that only the seller signed the
deed, theSandiganbayan did not err when it used the
unilateral Deed of Sale as basis to determine the true
consideration.
MODESTO LEOVERASvs. CASIMERO VALDEZ
42
G.R. No. 169985. June 15, 2011
To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule, the
Rules of Court allows a party to present evidence modifying,
explaining or adding to the terms of the written agreement if he
puts in issue in his pleading, as in this case, the failure of the
written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of
the parties. The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intention of the parties is either by reason of mistake,
fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, which nevertheless did
not prevent a meeting of the minds of the parties.
Facts:
When BenignaLimas died, she willed her share of a
parcel of land equally to her sisters Alejandra Llamas and
Josefa Llamas. Thus, Alejandra and Josefa each owned one-
half (1/2) of Benigna's share. On June 14, 1969, Alejandra's
heirs sold their predecessor's one-half (1/2) share (roughly
equivalent to 10,564 square meters) to the respondent, as
evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Also on June 14, 1969,
Josefa sold her own one-half (1/2) share (subject property) to
the respondent and the petitioner, as evidenced by another
Deed of Absolute Sale.
Years later, the respondent filed a complaint against
the petitioner, seeking the reconveyance of the 1,004-square
meter portion (disputed property), on the ground that the
petitioner is entitled only to the 3,020 square meters identified
in the parties' Agreement. On the other hand, the petitioner
claimed that the respondent voluntarily participated in
executing the Affidavit, which corrected the mistake in the
previously executed Agreement and confirmed the petitioner's
ownership over the disputed property. He claimed that since
the Agreement does not reflect the true intention of the parties,
the Affidavit was subsequently executed in order to reflect the
parties' true intention.
Issue: Whether or not the written agreement failed to express
the true intent and agreement of the parties therefore beyond
the ambit of parol evidence rule.
Held:
The petitioner's argument calls to fore the application
of the parol evidence rule, i.e., when the terms of an
agreement are reduced to writing, the written agreement is
deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no
evidence of these terms can be admitted other than what is
contained in the written agreement. Whatever is not found in
the writing is understood to have been waived and abandoned.
To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule, the
Rules of Court allows a party to present evidence modifying,
explaining or adding to the terms of the written agreement if he
puts in issue in his pleading, as in this case, the failure of the
written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of
the parties. The failure of the written agreement to express the
true intention of the parties is either by reason of mistake,
fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, which nevertheless did
not prevent a meeting of the minds of the parties.
At the trial, the petitioner attempted to prove, by parol
evidence, the alleged true intention of the parties by presenting
the Affidavit, which allegedly corrected the mistake in the
previously executed Agreement and confirmed his ownership
of the parcels of land covered by his titles. It was the
petitioner's staunch assertion that the respondent co-executed
this Affidavit supposedly to reflect the parties' true
intention. TCcIaA
In the present petition, however, the petitioner made a
damaging admission that the Benigna Deed is fabricated,
thereby completely bolstering the respondent's cause of action
for reconveyance of the disputed property on the ground of
fraudulent registration of title. Since the Affidavit merely reflects
what is embodied in the Benigna Deed, the petitioner's
admission, coupled with the respondent's denial of his
purported signature in the Affidavit, placed in serious doubt the
reliability of this document, supposedly the bedrock of the
petitioner's defense.
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS
Interpretation of Contracts under the CIVIL CODE:
Article 1370 Civil Code - If the terms of a contract are clear
and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting
parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.
If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of
the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former.
- It is an elementary rule of contract that the laws in
force at the time the contract was made must govern
its interpretation.
- Matters bearing upon the execution, interpretation,
and validity of a contract are determined by the law
of the place where the contract is made.
- The terms of the contract where unambiguous are
conclusive, in the absence of averment and proof of
mistake, the question being not what the intention
existed in the minds of the parties but what intention
is expressed by the language used.
Article 1371, Civil Code - In order to judge the intention of the
contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent
acts shall be principally considered.
- The contemporaneous and subsequent acts that may
serve as indicia of the intention of the parties are
those in which both of them participate.
Art. 1372, Civil Code- However general the terms of a
contract may be, they shall not be understood to comprehend
things that are distinct and cases that are different from those
upon which the parties intended to agree.
- Where a specific provision in a contract is followed by
a general provision covering the same subject matter,
the former will be held to prevail over the latter when
the two cannot stand together.
- Where both the general and special provisions may
be given reasonable effect, both are to be retained.
43
Art. 1373, Civil Code- If some stipulation of any contract
should admit of several meanings, it shall be understood as
bearing that import which is most adequate to render it
effectual.
- When an agreement is susceptible of several
meanings one of which would make it effectual, it
should be given such interpretation. The terms of a
contract must if possible be construed to mean
something rather than nothing.
Art. 1374, Civil Code - The various stipulations of a contract
shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones
that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.
Art. 1375, Civil Code - Words which may have different
significations shall be understood in that which is most in
keeping with the nature and object of the contract.
- When a term is susceptible of different meanings, it
should be understood in that sense which is most in
accord with the nature and object of the contract in
which it is used, in line with the rule that the intention
of the parties must prevail.
Art. 1376, Civil Code- The usage or custom of the place shall
be borne in mind in the interpretation of the ambiguities of a
contract, and shall fill the omission of stipulations which are
ordinarily established.
- The usage or custom of the place where the contract
was entered into may be resorted to as aids in making
definite what is uncertain or in clearing up what is
doubtful or ambiguous in a contract.
Art. 1377, Civil Code- The interpretation of obscure words or
stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused
the obscurity.
Art. 1378, Civil Code- When it is absolutely impossible to
settle doubts by the rules established in the preceding articles,
and the doubts refer to incidental circumstances of a gratuitous
contract, the least transmission of rights and interests shall
prevail. If the contract is onerous, the doubt shall be settled in
favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests.
If the doubts are cast upon the principal object of the contract
in such a way that it cannot be known what may have been the
intention or will of the parties, the contract shall be null and
void.
- Thus if the Contract is gratuitous such interpretation
should be made which would result in the least
transmission of rights and interest.
- If the doubt refers to the principal object of the
contract in question and such cannot be resolved
notwithstanding the application of said rule, the
contract shall be null and void.
Art. 1379, Civil Code- The principles of interpretation stated in
Rule 123 of the Rules of Court shall likewise be observed in
the construction of contracts.
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER THE REVISED
RULES OF COURT
Section 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.
REQUISITES:
1. The court must give to the legal words or phrases the
meaning they bear in the place where the writing was
executed;
2. That such meaning shall be disregarded if the
contract shows that the parties have intended to give
such words or phrases a meaning different from that
they have at the place of the execution of the writing.
Section 11: Instruments 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.
a. CONSTRUCTION AS A WHOLE- A contract must be
construed as a whole, and the intention of the parties
is to be collected from the entire instrument and not
from detached portions, it being necessary to
consider all of its parts in order to determine the
meaning of any particular part as well as of the whole.
- An agreement should be interpreted as a whole and
the meaning gathered from the entire context, and not
form the particular words, phrases, or clauses.
b. INTERPRETATION OF SEVERAL INSTRUMENTS
WHICH ARE PART OF ONE TRANSACTION- Where
several instruments are made as part of one
transaction, they will be read together, and each will
be construed with reference to the other.
Section 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.
a. INTENTION OF THE PARTIES – The court must
ascertain the intention of the parties only when the
terms of the contract are not clear and leave doubt
upon the intention of the contracting parties,
otherwise, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall
control.
Section 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 places in the position of those whose language he is to
interpret.
a. CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENT ACCORDING
TO SURROUNDING CIRCUSTANCES – the
44
 surrounding circumstances at the time it was made
should be considered for the purpose of ascertaining
its meaning, but not for the purpose a new distinct
undertaking.
b. PRELIMINARY AGREEMENTS AND
NEGOTIATIONS – In the interpretation of a writing
which is intended to state the entire agreement,
preliminary negotiations between the parties may,
however, be considered in order to determine their
meaning and intention, but not to vary or contradict
the plain terms of the instrument.
Section 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 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.
a. MEANING OF WORDS: ORDINARY SENSE - in
construing a written contract the words employed will
be given their ordinary and popularly accepted
meaning, in the absence of anything to show that they
were used in a different sense.
b. TECHNICAL WORDS CONSTRUED – Where
technical words are employed by parties who are
obviously unfamiliar with their meaning, they may be
construed in such manner as to effectuate the true
intention of the parties.
c. IDIOMATIC USAGE PREVAILS OVER LITERAL
TRANSLATION – A translation made in accordance
with the idiomatic usage of the language from which it
is made will prevail over a literal translation which,
while word for word correct, is not idiomatic.
Section 15:Written words control printed- When an
instrument consists partly of written words and partly of printed
forms, and the two are inconsistent, the former controls the
latter.
a. INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN WRITTEN AND
PRINTED PROVISIONS – where a part of a contract
is written and part is printed, and the written and
printed parts are apparently inconsistent or there is
reasonable doubt as to the sense and meaning of the
whole, the words in writing will control.
b. DISCREPANCY BETWEEN WORDS AND FIURES –
In case of an inconsistency between words and
figures in a contract the words govern.
Section 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 the
persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who
understand the language, is admissible to declare the
characters or the meaning of the language.
a. ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY TO
EXPLAIN THE CHARACTERS OF AN INSTRUMENT
WHICH ARE DIFFICULT TO DECIPHER – A person
who is skilled in the handling and inspection of
documents may state meaning of abbreviations, and
of obscure or elliptical entries or figures; and whether
a set of figures, letters, marks, or writings contain an
arrangement in cipher, and, if so, what they mean.
Section 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 was
made.
a. CONSTRUCTION AGAINST PARTY USING
WORDS- Where a contract is ambiguous it will
be construed most strongly against the party
preparing it. The reason for the rule being that a
man is responsible for ambiguities in his own
expressions and has no right to induce another to
contract with him on the supposition that his
words mean one thing, while he hopes the court
will adopt a construction by which they would
mean another thing more to his advantage.
Section 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.
a. NATURAL RIGHT – is meant those rights which are
necessarily inherent, rights which are innate and
which come from the very elementary laws of nature
such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and self-
preservation.
Section 19:Interpretation according to usage – An
instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to
determine its true character.
a. USAGE ADMISSIBLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS
DOUBTFUL – Usage may be admissible to explain
what is doubtful, it is never admissible to contradict
what is plain.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Sec 20 Rule 130
Qualification of Witnesses
-Can perceive, and perceiving can make known their
perception to others.
General Rule- 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:
Ambassadors of foreign countries by virtue of treaty obligations
President of the Philippines or other country
Case: People Vs. De Jesus
45
The fact that complainant displayed difficulty in comprehending
the questions propounded on her is undisputed. However there
is no showing that she could not convey her ideas y words or
signs. It appears in the records that complainant gave
sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded by
the court and the counsels. The trial court is satisfied that the
complainants can perceive and transmit in her own way her
own perceptions to others. She is therefore found to be a
competent witness.
Testimonial Duty of Citizens= to support the administration of
justice by attending its courts and giving his testimony
whenever he is properly summoned.
Process to enforce duty= the performance of the citizen’s
testimonial duty can only be invoked by the State after
adequate notice is given.
Witness= a person who testifies in a case or gives evidence
before a judicial tribunal.
= a person called to be present at some transaction soa s to
be able to attest to its having taken place.
Interested persons as witnesses= while rightfully subjected to
careful scrutiny, should not be rejected on the ground of bias
alone.
= if testimony is reasonable and consistent ad is not
contradicted by evidence from any reliable source, there is no
reason, as a general rule, for not accepting it.
Case: US vs. Mante 27 Phil 134
The testimony s interested witnesses should be subjected to
careful scrutiny but they should not be rejected on the ground
of bias alone.
Case: People vs. Natividad (CA) 50 OG 5824
Such testimony must be judged on their own merits. If they are
clear ad convinving and are not destroyed by other evidence of
record, they may be believed. And the testimony of these
witnesses fulfil the requirement.
Attorney as witness= counsel should not testify as a witness
unless it is necessary and that they should withdraw from the
active management of the case.
= except when it is essential to the ends of justice
Judge as witness= judicial conduct should not be subject to
cross-examination or comment, the peculiar duties of the judge
in administering oaths to the witnesses in case the court has
no clerk, and in deciding upon their competency, with his
power to commit for contempt when his testimony concerns
merely formal or preliminary matters about which there is no
dispute, as where he testifies in a perjury prosecution that the
defendant gave testimony before him in another proceeding in
another court.
Persons convicted of crime as witness= persons ho have been
convicted of perjury are not excluded law.
=since perjury is a crime involving moral turpitude, the convict
whenever mad a co-accused in any criminal case, cannot be
discharged to become a witness for the government in that
case, because under the ROC, the court may direct the
discharge of one of the several co-accusers for that purpose
when, in its judgement, such accused has ot at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
Presumption of competency of witness= means legal fitness or
ability of a witness to be heard on the trial of a case.
Objection to competency of witness= must be made before he
has given any testimony;
=If the incompetency appears on the trial, it mst be interposed
as soon as it becomes apparent.
Waiver of objection= may be done expressly or by silence.
The ff may be considered a waiver of the objection:
a. Where the witness testifies without objection,
though at that time the party knows of his
incompetency.
b. Here the party who might have made the
objection owns the witness in support of his own
case.
Sec 21 Rule 130
Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity
a. Those whose mental condition, at the time of their
production for examination, is such that they are
incapable of intelligently making known their
perception to others.
b. Children whose mental maturity is such as to render
them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting
which they are examined and of relating them
truthfuly.
Case: People vs. Salomon
A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from
being a witness.
Case: People vs. Mendoza
Requisites of competency of a child as witness,:capacity of
observation, capacity of recollection, and capacity of
communication.
46
Insane person as a witness= general rules is that a lunatic or a
person affected with insanity is admissible as a witness if he
has sufficient understanding to apprehend the obligation of an
oath and is capable of giving correct account of the matters
which he has seen or hears with respect to the questions at
issue.
Monomanica as witness= he understand the nature and
obligation of an oath and can give correct account of what he
ha seen or heard.
Deaf and Dumb = may be a competent witness although he us
uneducated in the use of signs and his capacity to convey his
ideas to others is very circumscribed and limited.
Rule 130, Section 22. Disqualification by reason of
marriage. — During their marriage, neither the husband
nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the
consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by
one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants.
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.
Reason
This is based on principles which are deemed important to
preserve the marriage relation as one of full confidence and
affection, and that this is regarded as more important to the
public welfare than that the exigencies of the lawsuits should
authorize domestic peace to be disregarded, for the sake of
ferreting out facts within the knowledge of strangers.
This applies only to a lawful wife – not a bigamous one, nor to
a paramour, nor to an affiance.
Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72 (Riano)
The specific reasons for the rule are the
following:
a. there is identity of interests between husband
and wife
b. if one were to testify for or against the other,
there is a consequent danger of perjury
c. the policy of the law is to guard the security and
confidence of private life, even at the risk of an
occasional failure of justice, and to prevent
domestic disunion and unhappiness
d. where there is want of domestic tranquility, there
is danger of punishing one spouse through the
hostile testimony of the other
Scope
The rule forbidding one spouse to testify for or against the
other applies to any form of testimony; therefore it protects
against using the spouse-witness’ admission, or against
compelling him/her to produce documents. However, res
gestae declarations of husband and wife are admissible for or
against each other, even though each is incompetent to testify.
A husband may not testify for or against his wife without her
consent; nor a wife for or against her husband without his
consent, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed against the other. This
provision deals with two different matters which rest on
different grounds of policy: the disqualification of the husband
and wife to testify in each other’s behalf, as well as their
privilege not to testify against each other.
People vs. Pansensoy, 388 SCRA 669 (Riano)
Under this rule, neither the husband nor the
wife may testify for or against the other without the
consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case
by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a
crime committed by one against the other or the
latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. However,
objections to the competency of a husband and wife
to testify in a criminal prosecution against the other
may be waived as in the case of other witnesses
generally. The objection to the competency of the
spouse must be made when he or she is first offered
as a witness. In this case, the incompetency was
waived by appellant’s failure to make a timely
objection to the admission of his wife’s testimony.
Either Spouse Must Be a Party to the Case
As to the adverseness of the testimony, courts generally hold
this to mean that the other spouse must be a party to the
cause, not a third person who happens to be involved
somehow in the case; otherwise the testimony does not hurt
the other spouse’s legal interests.
When Privilege Ceases
After the death or the divorce of one spouse, the privilege
ceases for the reason ceases. When the marriage is dissolved
by death, there is no more marriage and therefore, the
privilege can no longer be claimed.
It has been held that no unfavorable inference may be drawn
from a fact that a party spouse invokes the privilege to prevent
the witness-spouse from testifying against him or her.
Exceptions
a. that the case in which the husband or the wife is
called to testify is not a civil case instituted by one
against the other
b. that it is not a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other
Reason for the Exceptions
The identity of interests disappears and the consequent
danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existing.
47
 The security and confidence of private life which the law
aims at protecting will be nothing but ideals which, through
their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home.
Ordono vs. Daquigan, 62 SCRA 270 (Riano)
The Supreme Court ruled that the wife is
allowed to testify against her husband who was
accused of raping their daughter. It ruled that the
correct rule is the one laid down in Cargill vs. State
which held that, “The rule that the injury must amount
to a physical wrong upon the person is too narrow.
The better rule is that, when an offense directly
attacks or directly and vitally impairs the conjugal
relations, it comes within the exception to the
statute…”
People vs. Quidato Jr., 297 SCRA 1 (Riano)
May a spouse testify in a trial where the
spouse is a co-accused? The Court ruled in the
affirmative but likewise held that the testimony of the
wife in reference to her husband must be disregarded
since the husband timely objected thereto under the
marital disqualification rule. The Court explained that
the disqualification is between husband and wife, but
the rule does not preclude the wife from testifying
when it involves other parties or accused. Hence, the
wife could testify in the murder case against the
brothers who were jointly tried with the husband of the
witness. The Court stressed, however, that the
testimony cannot be used against accused-appellant
directly or through the guise of taking judicial notice of
the proceedings in the murder case without violating
the marital disqualification rule. “What cannot be done
directly cannot be done indirectly.”
Waiver of Privilege
Wigmore asserts that the privilege of objecting to testimony
concerning anti-marital facts belongs to the spouse who is a
party to the action and not to the spouse who is being used as
a witness. This seems to be the rule in this jurisdiction. Hence,
the right to object to the competency of one spouse pertains
solely to the spouse-party and not to the other spouse who is
offered as a witness.
Bar 2006 (Riano)
Leticia was estranged from her husband
Paul for more than a year due to his suspicion that
she was having an affair with Manuel, their neighbor.
She was temporarily living with her sister in Pasig
City. For unknown reasons, the house of Leticia’s
sister was burned, killing the latter. Leticia survived.
She saw her husband in the vicinity during the
incident. Later, he was charged with arson in an
Information filed with the RTC, Pasig City. During the
trial, the prosecutor called Leticia to the witness stand
and offered her testimony to prove that her husband
committed the arson. Can Leticia testify over the
objection of her husband on the ground of marital
privilege?
Suggested Answer
Leticia cannot testify. Section 22 of Rule 130
bars her testimony without the consent of the
husband during the marriage. The separation of the
spouses has not operated to terminate their marriage.
(Note: This is an answer based on the tenor of the
Rules of Court.)
The following answer should also be
considered:
Leticia may testify over the objection of her
husband. Where the marital and domestic relations
between her and the accused-husband have become
so strained that there is no more harmony, peace, or
tranquility to be preserved, there is no longer any
reason to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule.
(People vs. Castaneda, 271 SCRA 504; Alvarez vs.
Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72)
Section 23.Disqualification by reason of death or insanity
of adverse party. — 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 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.
Object and Purpose of the Rule
This is to guard against the temptation to give false testimony
in regard of the transaction in question on the part of the
surviving party and further, to put the two parties to a suit upon
terms of equality in regard to the opportunity to giving
testimony. If one party to the alleged transaction is precluded
from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities,
the other party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving
his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the
transaction. The underlying principle of the prohibition and the
reason for the same is to protect the estate from fictitious
claims and to discourage perjury.
48
 Dead Man’s Statute (Riano)
To level the playing field between the lucky
survivor and the poor deceased, our remedial law
ancestors devised a rule that would seal the lips of
the survivor by declaring him incompetent to testify on
the transaction between him and the deceased. The
rule is definitely one that does not protect the survivor
even at the risk of not paying a just and valid claim
because it is the survivor who has the stronger reason
to file a false claim. The rule is for the protection of
the guy who died. Hence, the name Dead Man’s
Statute.
Requisites of the Disqualification
a. that the witness is a party or assignor of a party to a
case or of a person in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted  It is only parties who assert claims
against an estate who are rendered incompetent to
testify. The word “parties” does not refer to the
executor or administrator who is the party defendant.
The term “assignor” of a party means assignor of a
cause of action which has risen, and not the assignor
of a right assigned before any cause of action has
arisen. However, this rule does not operate to exclude
the testimony which is favorable to the representative
of the deceased or incompetent person.
b. that the action is against an executor or administrator
or other representative of a deceased person, or
against a person of unsound mind  The term
“representative of a deceased person” has been
interpreted to include not only the executor or
administrator of a deceased person but also the
person or party who has succeeded to the right of the
deceased whether by purchase or descent or
operation of law.
Razon vs. IAC, 207 SCRA 234 (Riano)
As held by the Court, the rule contemplates
a suit against the estate, its administrator or executor
and not a suit filed by the administrator or executor of
the estate. A defendant who opposes the suit filed by
the administrator to recover alleged shares of stock
belonging to the deceased is not barred from
testifying as to his transaction with the deceased with
respect to the shares.
Sunga-Chan vs. Chua, 363 SCRA 249 (Riano)
Also when a counterclaim is set up by the
administrator of the estate, the case is removed from
the operation of the “dead man’s statute,” the plaintiff
may testify to occurrences before the death of the
deceased to defeat the counterclaim which is not
brought against the representative of the estate but by
the representative.
c. that the subject-matter of the action is a claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased person
or against such person of unsound mind  The words
“claim or demand” mean any action or proceeding
which may affect the real or personal properties of a
deceased or insane person. They are restricted to
debts or demand enforceable by personal actions
upon which money judgments can be rendered. As to
other actions against estates, no incompetency of
witnesses exists. An action for damages for breach of
an agreement to devise property for services
rendered is a claim against an estate.
Bar 2001 (Riano)
Maximo filed an action against Pedro, the
administrator of the estate of the deceased Juan, for
the recovery of a car which is part of the latter’s
estate. During the trial, Maximo presented witness
Mariano who testified that he was present when
Maximo and Juan agreed that the latter would pay a
rental of P20,000 for the use of Maximo’s car for one
month, after which Juan should immediately return
the car to Maximo. Pedro objected to the admission of
Mariano’s testimony. If you were the judge, would you
sustain Pedro’s objection? Why?
Suggested Answer
The objection of Pedro should not be sustained. The
testimony is admissible because the witness is not
disqualified to testify. Those disqualified under the
dead man’s statute or the survivorship disqualification
rule are parties to a case or persons in whose behalf
a case is prosecuted. The witness is not one of those
enumerated under the rule (Sec. 23, Rule 130, Rules
of Court).
d. that his testimony refers to any matter of fact which
occurred before the death of such deceased person
or before such person became of unsound mind 
This refers to testimonies which relates to any matter
of fact occurring before the death of the decedent or
before the person became of unsound mind. The
phrase “matter of fact” is literally interpreted to include
not only facts tending to establish the claim or
demand but also incidental facts. Negative facts are
not included in the matters prohibited by law. The
testimony of a plaintiff denying the occurrence of a
transaction with the deceased may be admitted on the
ground that such plaintiff does not testify to a fact
“occurring before the death of the decedent” but on
the contrary, that such fact has not occurred.
Waiver
A waiver occurs when plaintiff’s deposition is taken by the
representative of the estate, when counsel for the
representative cross-examines the plaintiff as to matters
occurring during deceased lifetime.
49
(Riano) The survivorship disqualification rule is intended to
benefit the estate of the deceased or insane person, hence,
this protection may be waived by:
a. failing to object to the testimony
b. cross-examining the witness on the prohibited
testimony (Santos vs. Santos, 366 SCRA 395)
c. by offering evidence to rebut the testimony
Bar 2007 (Riano)
True or False
The surviving parties rule bars Maria from testifying
for the claimant as to what the deceased Jose had
said to her, in a claim filed by Pedro against the
estate of Jose.
Suggested Answer
False. The rule bars only a party plaintiff or his
assignor or a person in whose behalf a case is
prosecuted. Maria is merely a witness and is not one
of those enumerated as barred from testifying.
Sec. 24- Disqualification by reason of privilege
communication. - The following persons cannot testify as
to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the
marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication
received in confidence by one from the other
during the marriage except in a civil case by one
against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter's
direct descendants or ascendants;
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his
client, be examined as to any communication
made by the client to him, or his advice given
thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
professional employment, nor can an attorney's
secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined,
without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of
which has been acquired in such capacity;
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case,
without the consent of the patient, be examined
as to any advice or treatment given by him or any
information which he may have acquired in
attending such patient in a professional capacity,
which information was necessary to enable him to
act in capacity, and which would blacken the
reputation of the patient;
(d) A minister or priest cannot, without the
consent of the person making the confession, be
examined as to any confession made to or any
advice given by him in his professional character
in the course of discipline enjoined by the church
to which the minister or priest belongs;
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his
term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the public
interest would suffer by the disclosure. (21a)
1. Source
A. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND
WIFE
2. The rule
- The husband or the wife during of after the
marriage, cannot b examined without the consent
of the other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during the
marriage.
3. Reason of the rule-
 That the admission of such testimony would have
a powerful tendency to disturb the peace of
families
 To weaken, if not destroy the mutual confidence
upon which the happiness of the married state
depends.
4. Requisite of the rule
a. Spouses must be legally married
- If they live together in illicit cohabitation, they are
not entitled to the privilege
- It is immaterial whether they believed in good
faith that they were married if in fact they were
not.
b. The communication must be confidential and
made during the marriage
- Only those communication, whether by word or
deed, as pass from one to the other by virtue of
the confidence resulting from their intimate
relation.
- Only the knowledge which the husband and the
wife obtains from the other which for the marital
relation and the confidence growing out of it,
would have been communicated, or which is of
such nature or character as that to repeat the
same would tend to unduly embarrass or disturb
the parties in their marital relations.
c. Form of communication
- Applies to any form of confidence disclosure.
- Maybe words or conduct.
e.i > letters from husband to the wife
> wife saw husband counting stolen money
and put it in his pocket.
5. Communication presumed confidential
- Marital communication presumed to be
confidential, but the presumption may be
50
 overcome by proof that they were not intended to
be private.
 Notwithstanding that one spouse
subsequently without consent of the other
disclosed such communication to a third
person.
6. When communication between husband and wife
cease to be confidential
a. When made in the presence of a third person.
 XPN: if the confidential
communication is overheard by a
third person still considered to be
as confidential
 the prohibition to testify is directed
only to the wife and not to the third
person so the latter cannot be
prevented from testifying
 XPN to XPN: if the third person
comes into the possession of the
communication by COLLUSION
and VOLUNTSRY DISCLOSURE
on either spouse, he becomes an
agent of such spouse and cannot
testify without the consent of the
other.
b. Communication intended for transmission to
third person.
 A letter written to the defendant by
his wife and seized by the police in
search of his effects on the day of
his arrest is admissible because a
privilege communication from one
spouse to another comes into the
hands of a third party, whether
legally or not without collusion and
voluntary disclosure on the part of
either spouse , the privilege is
thereby extinguished and if
competent becomes admissible.
 Statements from the notes of a
stenographer to whom the
husband dictated the letter and
who had transcribed it is
admissible, because normally the
husband and the wife communicate
without a stenographer . here the
communications have been
voluntarily revealed.
 Statements in the wife’s diary not
shown to the husband is
admissible.
 Those business and other
communication not related to or
dependent on mutual trust are not
privilege. But sometimes business
transaction between husband and
wife are held privileged
 Res gestae made in the presence
of the spouse may be received.
 Testimony of the former wife as to
the sanity of the husband who is
charged with homicide is
admissible.
7. Rule not applicable to dying declaration- on the
trial of the one who killed him.
- The widow is competent to testify on behalf of the
defense regarding the dying declaration made to
her by the deceased, considering the cause of
death.
8. Duration of the privilege
- Continues in effect even after the marital relation
has been terminated.
- This privilege is not affected by death of the other
spouse or absolute divorce.
 But when the communication is needed
in behalf of his estate, the surviving
should be entitled to waive it.
9. Exceptions
a. That the case in which the husband or the wife is
called to examined is a civil case instituted by
one against the other; or
b. a criminal case for a crime omitted by one
against the other
10. Anti-marital facts
- The spouse may not testify as to as to facts
related to the crime she learned before they got
married.
11. Incompetency as to anti0marital facts
distinguished from incompetency as to privilege
communication
Incompetency as to incompetency as to
anti-marital facts privilege
communication
Prohibits adverse Prohibits only as to
testimony regardless of knowledge obtained
the source through confidence or
the marital realtio
Exists only when a party Exists whether the
to the action is the husband or wife is a
husband or wife party to the action or not
Ceases upon death or Continues even after
either spouse the termination of the
marriage.
12. Waiver of privilege
- This privilege may be waived if not objected to.
 Objection to the admission is timely if
made before the answer to the question
for its revelation.
51
 - Privilege belongs to the communicating spouse.
The prohibition arises only when the person in
whose favor the privilege exist demands by
timely objection to the testimony.
B. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ATTORNEY
AND CLIENT
13. The rule
- The attorney could not be compelled, nor would
be allowed to disclose the following:
a. the privilege communication made by the client to
his attorney or his advice given thereon in the
course of or with a view o professional
employment
 confidentiality is inferred and presumed
until the contrary is shown
 there must be an existing attorney and
client relation.
 There must showing that the parties
agreed there is an employment ;or
 At least that he had consulted the
witness to that end and the latter had
not refused the employment
 If a lawyer friend without express
employment or hope of compensation,
was asked by the accused while visiting
that latter would plead guilty, the
communication is not privilege.
 Communication in the ordinary
intercourse is not privilege.
b. any fact the knowledge of which has been
acquired by the attorney’s secretary,
stenographer or clerk, in their respective
capacity.
- It is not essential to create the privilege that any
proceeding or civil, should be pending or even in
contemplation.
The attorney may testify or communication
not privilege:
a. that his client did not communicate
certain things to him
b. as to the residence of client
c. as to the circumstance surrounding the
drawing of the will and the
conversations had with the testator at
the time
d. attorney employed merely to act as
scrivener
e. copying a will
f. preparing assignments or leases
g. attorney acting as attesting witness
h. notary public as agent to procure a loan
i. manager of client’s property
j. acting as intermediary between
members of a family
k. as to corporation affairs when the
attorney is elected as a director
l. identification of the copy of the by-laws
AS A GENERAL RULE A LAWYER MAY NOT
REFUSE TO DIVULGE THE IDENTITY OF HIS
CLIENT; RATIONALE. — As a matter of public policy,
a client's identity should not be shrouded in mystery.
Under this premise, the general rule in our jurisdiction
as well as in the United States is that a lawyer may
not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the
name or identity of his client. The reasons advanced
for the general rule are well established. First, the
court has a right to know that the client whose
privileged information is sought to be protected is
flesh and blood. Second, the privilege begins to exist
only after the attorney-client relationship has been
established. The attorney-client privilege does not
attach until there is a client. Third, the privilege
generally pertains to the subject matter of the
relationship. Finally, due process considerations
require that the opposing party should, as a general
rule, know his adversary. "A party suing or sued is
entitled to know who his opponent is. He cannot be
obliged to grope in the dark against unknown forces.
(Regala vs. SandiganBayan, G.R. No. 105938)
EXCEPTION; WHEN THE CLIENT'S IDENTITY IS
PRIVILEGED. — The general rule is, however,
qualified by some important exception. 1) Client
identity is privileged where a strong probability exists
that revealing the client's name would implicate that
client in the very activity for which he sought the
lawyer's advice. 2) Where disclosure would open the
client to civil liability, his identity is privileged. 3)
Where the government's lawyers have no case
against an attorney's client unless, by revealing the
client's name, the said name would furnish the only
link that would form the chain of testimony necessary
to convict an individual of a crime, the client's name is
privileged. Apart from these principal exceptions,
there exist other situations which could qualify as
exceptions to the general rule. For example, the
content of any client communication to a lawyer lies
within the privilege if it is relevant to the subject matter
of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal
assistance. Moreover, where the nature of the
attorney-client relationship has been previously
disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be
confidential, the identity of the client has been held to
be privileged, since such revelation would otherwise
result in disclosure and the entire transaction.
Summarizing these exceptions, information relating to
the identity of a client may fall within the ambit of the
privilege when the client's name itself has an
independent significance, such that disclosure would
then reveal client confidences. (Regala vs.
SandiganBayan, G.R. No. 105938)
14. Reason for the rule
- Based on upon the ground of public policy
52
 - To encourage clients to make full disclosure of
facts in the interest of the administration of justice
- Intended to enable a client to place unrestricted
and unbounded confidence in his attoryney in
matters affecting his rights and obligations
without danger of having disclosures forced from
the attorney on the witness stand.
15. Requisite of the rule
a. Professional employment
- The atty-client relationship must exist at the time
the communication is made.
- Test whether the communications are made to an
attorney with a view to obtaining professional
assistance or advice- if so, then privilege.
 When is communication not
privilege:
1. No professional relation exist the time
the communication was made but
subsequently employs the atty in
relation to such statement
2. those voluntarily made after the attorney
refused to accept employment
- for the claim of this privilege it is not necessary
that the attorney sought to be prevented from
testifying be in active practice.
b. Communication by client to attorney
- The privilege is not confined to verbal or written
communications but extends to other means of
communications.
- It is necessary that the communication is
confidential and be intended as confidential
otherwise if confidence was not contemplated
then the testimony of the attorney or client may
be compelled.
- It is held that there is no privilege in cases where
abstract legal opinions are sought and obtained
on general questions of law, either civil or
criminal because no facts are disclosed so
nothing confidential of character to conceal.
c. Communication must have been made to the
attorney in the course of professional
employment or with a view or professional
employment or in hi professional capacity
- A communication to an attorney us said to be in
“his professional capacity” when the client
makes the same with the purpose of obtaining
from hi a legal advice and opinion concerning his
legal rights, obligation or duties relative to the
subject matter of communication.
- It must be related to which the attorney is
consulted or to put him in possession of
information to ebale him to properly and
intelligently serve the client.
- Privilege also applies to agents and a consultaion
with an agent in the attorney’s office.
 When privilege does not apply
1. An inquiry made of a friend who is not
an attorney
2. Consultation with e.i clerk of court,
deputy sheriff an unadmitted law student
3. The attorney cannot testify to the fact
the he had received silver coin as part of
his retainer from a client who is accused
for stealing a quantity of current silver
coin.
4. Those information obtained by a
detective posing as an attorney of
celebrity is excluded by court (PP v.
Barker)
5. Sidewalk advice from attorney upon
legal questions do which no
compensation is asked or expected and
none given except a luncheon should
not be regarded as privilege.
6. Those communication between an
attorney and witness for the client to
show that the attorney attempted to
corrupt or influence a witness to color
his testimony in favor of the accused.
16. Privilege applicable to counsel de oficio
- A counsel de oficio cannot testify in open court
without the consent of his client as to any fact
imparted by h, to his client in professional
consultation.
- Even if the consent is obtained, it is his duty to
ask first to be relieved and have another attorney
take his place before testifying and not to leave
his client without proper representation
17. Privilege not applicable to attorney who is
subscribing witness to his client’s will
- Attorney may testify to the attending
circumstances of the execution of his client’s will.
- The testator waives privilege as to his attorney’s
testimony concerning testamentary
communication.
18. Communication made to judges are privilege
- The principle is not affected by the fact that the
attorney in this case was also a judge. The fact
that he occupied that position gave an increased
weight to his advice.
- It is in the nature of the confidence which exist
between the client and the attorney.
19. Communications to an attorney as a public officer
to enable the latter to act in that capacity not
privilege
- Because a complaint made to a prosecutor will
usually be made for the purpose of inciting public
prosecution and not for the protection of the
complainant’s rights.
20. Communication for unlawful purpose not privilege
53
 - Those for the purpose is to commit a crime
partakes of the nature of conspiracy or attempted
conspiracy
- It is not unlawful to divulge such communication
and under some circumstances it is the duty of
the attorney to do so.
- Communication is not privilege where the client
seeks advice that will enable him to pertpetrate a
fraud.
- The attorney’s ignorance of his client’s intentions
deprives the information of a professional
character as full confidence has been withheld.
But where a contemplated act is criminal only if
committed under certain circumstances or with a
certain intent and such circumstances or intent
are not shown to be present, the lawfulness of
the act will be presumed and the privilege will
hold.
21. Communication by a client to his attorney in the
presence of, or overheard by third persons not
within the privilege
- This contemplates a situation where the third
party is not an agent of either client or attorney.
 who are considered as agent,
presence of which does not negate
the confidential nature of the
communication
1. Interpreter
2. Agent of the client
3. Parent of the client who is a
child.
4. Representative of an attorney
- The privilege exists if the client if not notice the
presence of the third person overhearing the
communication
- Third person foreign to the relation are competent
to testify to the communications they overheard.
- Where the communication was made for the
purpose of having the attorney tell others, it was
not a privileged communication
- An employee of a corporation who was also
stenographer where such counsel may give
evidence as to corporate correspondence where
such evidence did not come from her relationship
with corporation attorney
22. When an attorney may be compelled to produce
or disclose the contents of a document entrusted
to him by his client
- If the documents are not privilege while in the
hands of the client he cannot make them
privilege by placing them in possession of his
counsel
- An attorney cannot be compelled cannot order
the opening of the art metal filing cabinet it
having proven that it belongs to the attorney and
that he keeps records and documents of his
client there.
23. Privilege not applicable to actions brought by
client against attorney
- Because if the attorney is not allowed in such
case to disclose confidential communications of
his client he will suffer manifest injustice.
24. To whom privilege belongs
- The privilege belongs to the client and he alone
can invoke it.
- He may claim not only when his attorney is called
to disclose professional communicatios but also
when he himself is asked to make disclosure.
- When the privilege belongs to two or more client,
the consent of each is essential to constitute
waiver.
- In a criminal trial, the court may interpose of its
own motion for the protection of an accused who
is entirely ignorant of his rights to remain silent
when he is called to state what he said to is
attorney.
Duration of privilege: Continues even after the relation of
client and attorney is terminated,
the seal of the law once fixed upon them remains forever,
unless removed by the party himself in whose favor it is there
placed.
Waiver of privilege: either be express or implied
Result: the attorney may give in evidence matters confidentially
communicated either for the purpose of giving evidence in
chief or purposes of impeachment
Implied waiver consists of:
a) Clients failure to object to attorneys testimony
b) In giving evidence on the privilege communication
c) When privilege communication falls on the hands of
the adverse party
d) In calling or cross examining his attorney regarding
privileged communication
The clients representative may, waive the privilege, but only
when the application of the rule would be disadvantageous to
his estate.
The waiver of the right precludes the assertion of the right
upon appeal or upon subsequent trial of the case but does
not constitute a waiver of the privilege in another
independent transaction.
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT
(curative, preventive or palliative treatment)
Privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe, full and
confidential disclosure by patient of all facts, circumstances
and symptoms, untrammeled by apprehension of their
subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on the
witness stand
-to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion and
be enabled safely and efficaciously to treat his patient
-lend a sense of security and confidence to the relation of
patient and physician so that the patient will not be reticent
about making disclosures which may be material to his
physical welfare
Requisites for the rule to apply:
54
 a) Action in which the Advice or treatment given or any
information be in a civil case
b) Physician and patient relations existed
c) Information was acquire while professionally
attending the patient
d) Information was necessary for the performance of
his professional duty
e) Disclosure of the information would tend to
blacken the reputation of the patient
Limited to civil cases only: in criminal cases the
privilege does not apply for the maintenance of public
order and the life and liberty of the citizens are
deemed more important than the purpose for which
the privilege was created
- Not conferred to shield/ weapon to be used by a
person charged with crime
Not indispensable that the patient should have
actually employed the physician, surgeon or
obstetrician. May be applied in extremis in view
to a curative treatment any information obtained
by him for that reason is privilege
Privilege cannot be extended by construction to persons
employing curative processes not coming within the ordinary
meaning of the term practice of medicine, surgery or
obstetrics.
Communications made by a patient to dentist, pharmacists,
and nurses who are not acting as agents of physicians,
surgeons, or obstetrics are not privileged.
Covers all facts learned by the observation and by all
methods necessary to enable the physician to prescribe,
including communication by the physician by third person on
behalf of the patient to enable him to perform his professional
duty. Communications of the body, observation of
symptoms, results of the doctors examination, the
patient’s condition as fund by the doctor, the name of the
ailment, the nature of any operation performed, the
statement of facts or opinion given to the patient.
Including opinions and prescriptions.
The attending physician may not testify even though
employed as an expert witness by the other side.
Privilege includes examination of patients employed by a
third party in order for the physician to report to his principal
and to the efficacy of certain treatment, being given by other
physicians.
X-ray plates and radiographs are considered privilege
including the oral communications or observations made or
had for the purpose of enabling the physician to treat or
prescribe for his patient.
Where information is clearly immaterial to the patient’s
treatment, it cannot be considered privilege, but if it was
obtained from observation and inspection of the patient’s
body, privilege applies regardless of whether or not such
information was necessary for the treatment.
Tend to blacken his reputation- which might bring
reproach or disgrace upon the patient.
Privilege rests upon the person objecting and must show
that relation of physician and patient existed.
The court not the physician determines whether the physician
must testify, court may hold preliminary hearing to determine
circumstances. Not the duty of the court to require physician
to testify.
After the patient has gone to his grave, the living are not
permitted to impair his name and disgrace his memory. An
express waiver maybe made by the patient himself, or the
deceased person’s representative or the beneficiary of the
insurance policy.
Also by giving express consent, to the testimony of the
physician, or by calling the physician to testify as to the
privilege matter. The guardian of the minor may also give his
consent provided that it is not to the minor’s prejudice.
Implied waiver is found when the patient himself takes the
stand to testify about his physical condition, including the
sending of a physician’s certificate of a cause of death,
as part of the proofs of death required by a life insurance
policy.
Once the waiver is made, such waiver is final and cannot be
recalled. Privilege is not waived by the patient in making
voluntary disclosure outside the court. Where the waiver is
procured by fraud or coercion, the waiver is not effect and the
privilege may not be claimed.
Privilege not applicable where patient brings action
against physician, for is a patient makes public in a court of
justice the occurrences of the sickroom, for obtaining a
judgment for damages against his physician , he cannot shut
out the physician himself not any other who was present at
the time covered by the testimony. By his voluntary act he
breaks down the barrier and the professional duty of
secrecy ceases.
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MINISTER OR PRIEST OR
PENITENT
REASON: To compel a minister or priest to testify to a
confession to him by a peninet is equivalent to an annulment
of the confessional institution, for many would no longer make
confessions, not done by government where religious
tolerance is sanctioned by law.
The privilege covers only confessions of a penitential in
their character, confessions of sins with a view to
obtaining pardon and spiritual advice or assistance, to
clergymen in obedience to some supposed religious duty
or obligation and do not embrace communications
clergymen, however, confidential, when not made in
connection with or in discharge of some such supposed
religious duty or obligation;
or when made to them while in discharge of duties other than
those which pertain to the office of a clergyman.
Communications made not in the course of religious
discipline but in the contemplation of a crime, are not
privileged.
Accuse met the priest on a railroad train and with no intent to
secure his professional advice, assistance or consolation, told
his story incriminating himself, it was held that the
communication was not privileged.
Prosecution for the crime of bigamy that the statements made
by the accused to a priest who was to communicate them to
the first wife, to induce are not privileged.
55
 A communication to a priest made otherwise than in his
ecclesiastical capacity is not privileged.
Confession must be made in the profession character of
the priest and in the course of discipline enjoined by the
rules of practice of the denomination to which the priest
or minister belongs.
Not including statements made by a church member in the
presence of his minister and fellow members. There can be
no privilege, where a minister is consulted, but as a notary or
a friend and interpreter,
Determination through the question from the
circumstances and facts leading up to the making of the
confession, disclosure should not be required unless it
appears that the claim of privilege is erroneously made.
Waiver of privilege when a penitent to the extent of giving
evidence of what took place at the confessional he cannot
complaint of evidence which goes no further to established
the facts revealed by him.
Exceptions to the rule:
1) Policy of the state requires the disclosure
2) Innocent party is charged with a crime, conviction for
which he can escape only by a disclosure of facts
given in the confessional
3) Clergyman receiving the confession is authorized to
testify by the person confessing
4) Disclosure is necessary in order to prevent an
impending crime
Canon 1757: The following are excluded as
incapable of witnessing. Priests, in whatever
concerns any knowledge they may received through
sacramental confession, eventhough they may have
been released from the obligation of the seal, even
more, anything whatsoever heard by anyone, or in
any way in the confession may not be accepted as
even an indication of the truth.
PUBLIC OFFICERS AND PUBLIC INTEREST
Reason for the rule: It is the duty of every citizen to
communicate to his government any information which he has
of the commission of an offense against the law;
and a court of justice will not compel or allow such information
to be disclosed, either by the subordinate officer to whom it is
given, by the informer himself or by any other person without
the permission of the government.
The evidence being excluded not for the protection of the
witness or of the party in the particular case, but upon general
grounds of public policy,
because of the confidential nature of such communication.
Public interest means more than mere curiosity, something in
which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary
interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
COMMUNICATIONS to public officials: privilege applies to
communication to such offers only as have a responsibility or
duty to investigate or to prevent public wrongs, and not to
officials in general.
The law recognizes the duty of every citizen to communicate to
the government and to its officers such information as he may
have concerning the commission of offenses against the laws.
Purpose: for encouraging the performance of their duties
without fear of consequences,
a witness cannot be compelled to disclose the names of
persons by whom and to whom information had been given
which led to the discovery of the offense.
Communications between officials: covers matters not
ordinarily made public in the course of their duties, and whom
their disclosure would tend to injure seriously the welfare of the
State.
Privilege can be recognized in matters involving data upon the
National Defense or upon international negations pending.
Courts will not compel the disclosure of
state secrets by the other departments of the government in
ordinary judicial proceedings,
or require the publication of a state document that may involve
the danger to the nation
or of communications between government of a confidential
nature.
Privilege does not apply: Disclosure will be compelled
When what is asked is useful evidence to vindicate the
innocence of an accused person,
Or lessen the risk of false testimony,
Or is essential to the proper disposition of the case
Or the benefit to be gained by a correct disposition of the
litigation was greater than any injury which would inure to the
relation by disclosure of the information
Disclosure of the name of the informer maybe necessary in a
case where the accused claims
he is the victim of false accusations by an enemy
Or where he claims he is the victim of a groundless arrest or
persecution by the police
OTHER PRIVILEGED MATTERS
Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of
published news-
The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any
newspaper, magazine or periodical or general circulation
cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or
information appearing in said publication unless the court or a
house of committee of congress finds that such revelation is
demanded by the security of the state.
Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they
voted
to protect legal voters in the secrecy of ballot
The practice compelling qualified electors to disclose for whom
they voted has long been condemned as a kind of inquisitorial
power unknown to the principles of a free government. An
illegal voter may decline to answer for whom he voted, on the
ground that his answer might incriminate himself, but in such
case the contents of the ballot maybe shown by other
testimony.
+ TRADE SECRETS
There is a privilege not to disclose ones’ trade secrets. It
covers usually formulas of manufacture, but may also include
price lists and customer’s lists. It is not absolute; the trial court
56
may compel disclosure where it is indispensable for doing
justice.
+Tax census returns
+Bank Deposits- all bank deposits are absolutely confidential
and may not be examined, inquired or looked into except in
those cases enumerated therein
-Anti Graft
-unexplained wealth is similar to cases of bribery or dereliction
of duty
2. Testimonial Privilege
Section 25.Parental and filial privilege. — No person may be
compelled to testify against his parents, other direct
ascendants, children or other direct descendants.
Scope: The former filial privilege taken from Art. 315 of the
Civil Code was expanded to include other direct ascendants
and to exempt parents from being compelled to testify against
their children or other direct descendants.
Reason of the rule: To preserve “family cohesion”.
When privilege may be invoked: the privilege may now be
invoked in both civil and criminal cases.
3. Admissions and Confessions
Section 26.Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him.
1. Admission defined.
An admission is a voluntary acknowledgement in
express terms or by implication, by a party interest or by
another by whose statement he is legally bound, against
his interest, of the existence or truth of a fact in dispute
material to the issue.
2. Admission Classified.
Admission may be classified into judicial, extra-
judicial, express and implied.
Express admissions- made in express terms and of
the very fact in issue or in dispute.
Implied admissions- those which result from an act
done or undone.
3. Certainty.
An admission should possess the same degree of
certainty as would be required in the evidence which it
represents, and hence mere conjectures or
suggestions as to what might have happened are not
competent.
4. Admission distinguished from confession.
Admission: usually applied in criminal cases to statements
of fact by the accused which do not directly involved an
acknowledgement of the guilt of the accused or of criminal
intent to commit the offense with which he is charged.
Confession: a declaration made at any time by a person,
voluntary and without compulsion or inducement, stating
or acknowledging that he had committed or participated in
the commission of a crime.
THE UNITED STATES, vs. JOSE CORRALES G.R. No.
L-9230, Nov. 10, 1914
But a distinction must be made between confessions and
admissions. A confession, as distinguished from an
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 had, 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. The statutory provision excluding evidence as to
confessions until and unless the prescribed foundation is
laid not applicable to admissions, which do not amount to
confessions although they may be sufficient, when taken
together with other evidence of surrounding circumstances
to sustain an inference of the guilt of the accused. The
reason for the rule excluding evidence as to confessions
unless it is first made to appear that they are made
voluntarily does not apply in cases of admissions,
although, of course, evidence of the fact that a particular
statement was made under duress would tend very
strongly to destroy its evidentiary value.
5. Admission distinguished from declaration against
interest.
Admission:
Primary evidence;
Receivable when declarant is available as witness;
Competent only when declarant is a party to the action.
Declaration against interest:
Secondary evidence;
Receivable only when declarant is unavailable as witness;
Competent even if declarant is not a party to the action.
6. Admission distinguished from self-contradiction.
57
 Admission is for a party-opponent.
Self-contradiction is to witness- a statement made
somewhere else, and inconsistent with his allegations of
claim or defense in the case on trial.
7. Relevancy and materiality.
In order that a statement offered as an admission may be
received it must, at the time when it is offered be relevant
to, and have a material bearing on the issues in the case.
ADMISSION BY ACT
Admission implied from conduct or utterance of a party.
GENERAL SHIPPING CO., INC., vs. WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION COMMISSION G.R. No. L-14936 July 30,
1960
The record also shows that the company has voluntarily paid a
part of the compensation, which circumstances likewise
indicates admission of the compensability of the claim,
(Bachrach Motor Co. Inc. vs. Domingo Panaligan, 99 Phil.,
238; 52 Off. Gaz., [7] 3583). The above facts are admissions
against interest and admissible in evidence against the
respondent company (Sec. 7, Rule 123, Rules of Court).
There may be no other evidence presented by the claimant but
the admissions of the company as above-indicated together
with the causes stated in the claim, are sufficient evidence to
sustain the decision sought herein to be set aside. The finding
that the claim is compensable involves an exercise of
discretion by the Workmen's Compensation Commission and
the same should not be disturbed on appeal because there is
no abuse thereof.
ADMISSION BY DECLARATION
It may be introduced in evidence in two ways: a) as
independent evidence, and b) as impeaching evidence.
a) As independent evidence- admission are original
evidence and no foundation is necessary for their
introduction of evidence.
i. Oral Admissions. Admission was made orally, it
may proved by any competent witnesses who
heard them.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOSEFINA N. SAMSON,
G.R. No. L-14110
March 29, 1963
The appellant claims that there is no competent evidence
that the victim and the appellant were husband and wife. The
claim is without merit. The testimony of the appellant on
direct examination disclosed several times that she was
married to the deceased in both “Church and civil
marriages.” On cross examination, she testified on the exact
date of her marriage to the deceased (4 July 1934) and the
place (Pili, Camarines Sur) where they were married. She
did not only admit that the deceased was her husband but
also brought out the fact that out of the marriage they had
five children and that only three are living, namely: Glenda,
Manuel and Felix. Indeed, there could be no better proof of
marriage in a parricide case than the admission by the
accused of the existence of such marriage. More, Ramon M.
Velasco, mayor of Libon, Albay, and uncle of the deceased
testified that when he saw the appellant in the afternoon of
13 October 1954 at the municipal jail, she immediately
begged for his forgiveness and told him that she had shot
her husband Pepe (referring to the deceased) because the
latter had a mistress and she could not bear or suffer it any
longer.
Admission made over telephone.
An admission made in a telephone conversion may be proved,
where the witness identified the speaker by his voice or
otherwise, and there is no doubt as to the identity of the person
who made the admission.
Admissions made through interpreter.
A competent oral admission may be made through an
interpreter, where such method of conversation is, in some
manner, voluntarily adopted by the parties.
i. Written Admissions. When the admission is in a
private document, there must be some proof of the
authenticity or identity of the document in accordance
with Section 20, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of
Court, that is, the party offering it must prove its due
execution and authenticity.
Admission made in letters.
Where the statement offered against a party is in the form of a
written declaration, such admissions requires greater weight
than mere verbal admissions.
Admissions made in documents or memoranda.
MUNICIPALITY OF OAS, vs. ROA,G.R. No. L-2017
November 24, 1906
The two statements signed by Roa, one in 1892 and the other
in 1893, are competent evidence against him. They are
admissions by him to the effect that at that time the pueblo was
the owner of the property in question. They are, of course, not
conclusive against him. He was entitled to, and did present
evidence to overcome the effect of these admissions. The
evidence does not make out a case of estoppel against him.
(sec. 333, par. 1, Code of Civil Procedure.)
The admissibility of these statements made by Roa do not rest
upon section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which relates
to declarations or admissions made by persons not a party to
the suit, but it rests upon the principle that when the defendant
58
in a suit has himself made an admission of any fact pertinent to
issue involved, it can be received against him.
EVANGELISTA, vs. BASCOS, ET AL., G.R. No. 2332,
November 10, 1905.
The evidence does not show that he has any documentary title
to any of the land. He introduced in evidence a paper,
executed by the principales of the town in 1860, which
purported to give him and Leonardo Evangelista the ownership
of a certain tract of land in said barrio for the purpose of
cultivating the same. The title to this land could not have been
granted by this instrument, because the persons executing it
had no power to convey it.
There is nothing in the description contained in this document
which indicates that it is the same land described in the
complaint in this action. The Plaintiff, however, testified that it
was, and that he had been in possession thereof from 1860 to
1902, when he was dispossessed by the Defendants.
There is no other evidence in the case which relates to any of
the Defendants except to the Defendant Tranquilino Bascos.
As to him the Plaintiff introduced in evidence a document
signed by Bascos in May, 1893. This document stated that the
tract of land for which Bascos had obtained the deed from the
State had been returned by him to its former owner, the
Plaintiff.
It showed that the Defendant Bascos had not delivered the
possession of this land to the Plaintiff, and his claim is that he
was induced to sign the document by reason of threats made
at the time by the parish priest of the locality. It is claimed by
the Plaintiff that this document operated as a transfer of the
title of the land from the Defendant Bascos to the Plaintiff. We
do not think that it can be given any such effect. It amounted,
in our opinion, only to an extrajudicial admission that the
Plaintiff was the owner of the land. It was competent for the
Defendant to overcome the effect of this admission by
evidence showing that the Plaintiff was not in fact the owner of
the land, and the evidence produced by the Defendant did, in
our opinion, prove that the Plaintiff was not the owner.
ASUNCION GEFES, vs. SALVIO, ET AL., G.R. No. L-11387,
February 7, 1917
The fact is indisputable that these lands did not belong to the
defendant, and if he bought them at public auction in
December, 1908, for P661, he did so with his wife Asuncion’s
own money. This is evidenced by Exhibit A, a document signed
by the said Salvio before the notary Nicolas Tomas on March
27, 1909, in which he clearly sets forth that the said sum of
P661, Philippine currency, which he paid for the properties
above-mentioned, belonged to the private funds of his wife
Asuncion Gefes. He furthermore declared in the said document
that she was the true and absolute owner of the said lands by
him purchased out of his wife’s funds and in her behalf. This
document was ratified before a notary and attests the truth of
all its contents, even against third persons. The defendant’s
denial of its authenticity is not supported by any reliable
evidence, nor by the affidavit (record, p. 75) presented for the
purpose of obtaining a reopening of the case. Furthermore, it is
to be noted that the defendant Salvio cannot be heard to
repudiate what he solemnly declared in a notarial document.
Admissions made in previous case.
THE UNITED STATES, vs. CHING PO G.R. No. L-7707,
December 6, 1912.
The procedure in criminal cases in the Philippine islands
provides that a defendant in a criminal proceeding may be a
witness in his own behalf. When he avails himself of this right,
he is subject to a rigid cross-examination and is bound by his
admissions, voluntarily given, in such examination. His
admissions are presumed to be given voluntarily and when
thus given on a previous trial, they may be used against him in
a subsequent cause.
In the Matter of the Estate of JOAQUINA MIJARES DE
FARInAS. - ENRIQUE DE LA VEGA, vs. VICENTE LAVIN
G.R. No. L-4878February 27, 1909
Later in the proceedings an answer was presented in her
behalf. In this she stated that what she declared when asked to
recognize the authenticity of the documents was that her
deceased husband owed Lavin 1,171 pesos and not 1,233
pesos. It does not appear that she signed this answer. It may
have been signed by her solicitor. Under these circumstances
the contents of the answer can not be considered as
admissions made by her which could be used as evidence
against her in another proceeding entirely disconnected with
the subject-matter of the proceeding in which the answer was
made. There is, therefore, nothing in the proceeding of 1894
which proves either the existence of a debt from the husband
Paulino Lavin or any recognition of such supposed
indebtedness by the deceased.
b) As impeaching evidence- if proof of the admissions is
sought for impeachment purposes, a proper foundation must
be laid for the impeaching questions, by calling the attention of
such party to his former statement so as to give him an
opportunity to explain before such admissions are offered in
evidence.
JUAN YSMAEL & CO., INC., vs.NAGEEB T. HASHIM and
AFIFE ABDO CHEYBAN GORAYEB G.R. No. L-26247,
March 18, 1927
The third assignment of error cannot be sustained. In offering
in evidence the testimony given by Mr. Hemady and the
Hashims in the earlier case, the defendant-appellant did not
claim that said testimony contained admissions against interest
by the parties to the action or their agents; if such had been the
case, the testimony would have been admissible without the
laying of a foundation and without the witnesses having
testified in the case at bar. But the purpose of the offer of the
59
testimony was evidently to impeach the testimony of the same
witnesses in the present case and if so, a foundation should
have been laid by calling the attention of the witnesses to the
former statements so as to give them opportunity to explain
before the statements were offered in evidence.
UNITED STATES, vs. JOSE I. BALUYOT G.R. No. L-14476,
November 6, 1919
It is almost universally accepted that unless a ground is thus
laid upon cross-examination, evidence of contradictory
statements are not admissible to impeach a witness; though
undoubtedly the matter is to a large extent in the discretion of
the court.
ADMISSION BY OMISSION
An admission may be implied from an omission.
GUTIERREZ HERMANOS, vs. DE LA RIVAJanuary 12, 1909,
G.R. No. 4604
The plaintiffs having been made it at a certain rate and having
notified the defendant thereof it was clearly his duty to object to
the rate if he was not satisfied with it. As is seen, he made no
objection whatever at the time, and as far as appears never
made any objection until he filed his answer herein. The
evidence is sufficient to show that he assented to the rate at
which the change was made. The judgment of the court below
with reference to this objection must be sustained.
People v. Belendrez, et al. 47 O.G. 5134
Delay in instituting a criminal prosecution unless satisfactorily
explained, creates suspicion about the motive of the supposed
offended party and gives rise to reasonable doubt of the guilt of
the defendant.
CONSTRUCTION, CONCLUSIVENESS AND WEIGHT OF
ADMISSIONS
Construction of admissions- Every admission is to be taken as
an entirety of the fact which makes for the one side with the
qualifications which limit, modify or destroy its effect on the
other side.
Admission not conclusive evidence- The general rule is that
admissions are not conclusive when proved, but maybe
disproved by ordinary evidence. This rule is not affected by the
fact that the admission was made under oath as a witness or
otherwise. Weight to be given to evidence of admissions may
depend upon various matters affecting its accuracy.
SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS
Self-serving declarations are unsworn statements made by the
declarant out of the court and which are favorable to his
interests.
Self-serving declarations are not admissible in evidence as
proof of the facts asserted, whether they arose by implications
from acts and conduct or were made orally or reduced in
writing. Objections: hearsay character; untrustworthy
declarations, open door to fraud and perjuries.
Death does not render self-serving declarations admissible.
LIM-CHINGCO,vs. TERARIRAY, ET AL., G.R. No. 2123,
October 3, 1905
Plaintiff also offered in evidence another written document,
which was a protest made by the defendants against this
inventory, on the ground that it did not include the land in
question. The court refused to admit this document, to which
the plaintiff excepted. The claim of the plaintiff is that the
inventory made by the executor contained the same lands as
those described in the will of Marcelo, and consequently that
the protest made by the defendants was an admission that the
will did not describe these lands. It does not appear from the
evidence in the case that the lands described in this inventory
are the same as those described in the will. There was no error
in this ruling.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. BEDIA,G.R. No. L-2252,
May 31, 1949
Appellant's defense hinges on the jamming of the deceased's
pistol. His theory is that the deceased failed to fire his pistol
because it jammed when he attempted to fire the first shot
against appellant. It appears, however, upon expert testimony
on record, that the jamming of the firearm was due not to any
mechanical defect but to intentional insertion of a bullet from
the outside into the pistol's barrel. The fact that the appellant
had experience in handling firearms and the fact that it took
him more than the necessary length of time from the moment
he took the pistol of the deceased to the moment when he
presented it to the authorities together with his own, lay strong
grounds for the belief that appellant concocted the jamming of
the pistol so as to enable him to present in court a self-serving
evidence.
THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, vs.
CUSTODIO,G.R. No. L-26170, January 27, 1969
As to the appellants' having repudiated their signatures, the
same was a self-serving act, more indicative of a belated
intention to squirm out of a disadvantageous transaction, after
they entered it with open eyes, which is no ground for setting
the same aside (Noble vs. City of Manila, 67 Phil. 1). Certainly,
it should take much weightier proof to invalidate a written
instrument (cf. Mendezona vs. Phil. Sugar Estates, 41 Phil.
493; Bank of the Phil. Is. vs. Fidelity Surety Co., 51 Phil. 57).
Persons whose unsworn declarations in behalf of a party are
not admissible in favor of the latter are: 1) agents, as regards
their principal; 2) a guardian, as regards his ward; 3) a co-
defendant or co-partner, as regards the other; 4) a principal, as
regards his surety; 5) a husband or wife, as regards his or her
spouse; 6) an employee, as regards his employer; 7) officers of
the corporation, as regards the corporation; 8) a public officer,
as regards a public corporation; and 9) predecessors in title, as
regards an owner of the property.
60
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.AURELIO ALVERO
(alias RELI) G.R. No. L-820, April 11, 1950.
As a rule, diaries are inadmissible because they are self-
serving in nature, unless they have the nature of books of
account (51 L. R. A. [N.S], 813-815); but it has also been held
that an entry in a diary being in the nature of a declaration, if it
was against interest when made, is admissible. Self-serving
declarations made by a party are admissible in his own behalf
in the following cases:
1) when they form part of res gestae, including
spontaneous statements, and verbal acts;
2) when they are in the form of complaint and
exclamation of pain and suffering;
3) when they are part of a confession offered by the
prosecution;
4) where the credibility of a party has been assailed on
the ground that his testimony is a recent fabrication,
provided they were made at a time when a motive to
misrepresent did not exist;
5) When they are offered by the opponent.
6) When they are offered without objection, the evidence
cannot afterward be objected to as incompetent.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. DEMIARG.R. No. L-
15130, May 31, 1960
It is also contended for appellant that the trial court erred in
admitting appellant's letter to his brother-in-law Lope Mayol
(Exh. A) and that there is nothing in the letter which would
show that appellant admitted his guilt. Appellant argues that,
instead of considering said letter as evidence indicative of his
guilt, the trial court should have considered it in his favor,
because he disclaimed therein asked forgiveness from his
sisters and begged them to testify that their mother died of
natural illness and not of strangulation, we fail to see why said
statements could not be taken as an admission of appellant's
guilt. As to the argument that said letter should have been
considered in appellant's favor, it may stated that self-serving
statements made extra-judicially cannot be admitted as
evidence in favor of the person making them, although the
incriminating statement is evidence against him.
Section 27.Offer of compromise not admissible. — In civil
cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any
liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses
(criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromised by the accused may be
received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a
plea of guilty to lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence
against the accused who made the plea or offer.
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.
Compromise defined
Compromise is an agreement made between two or more
parties as a settlement of matters in dispute.
Offer of compromise in civil cases
An offer to compromise in civil cases does not amount to an
admission of liability. It is not admissible in evidence against
the offeror.
Offer of compromise in criminal cases
In criminal cases, an offer of compromise by the accused may
be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
When offer of compromise in criminal cases not an
implied admission of guilt
Jurisprudence: U.S vs. Torres (34 Phil. 994)
In criminal cases where compromise is allowed by law, as in
opium or usury cases, no implied admission of guilt arises
against the accused who makes an offer to compromise. The
Collector of Internal Revenue may compromise any civil or
other case arising under the Tax Code or other law or part of
law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Similarly, in criminal cases involving quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) an offer of compromise does not constitute an
implied admission of guilt.
Civil Code provisions on compromise
No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid:
 The civil status of persons
 The validity of a marriage or a legal
separation
 Any ground for legal separation
 Future support
 The jurisdiction of courts
 Future legitime
Payment of medical and similar expenses
The traditional ground for this rule is that the payment or offer
is usually made from the humane impulses and not from an
admission of liability.
Section 28.Admission by third party. — The rights of a party
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of
another, except as hereinafter provided.
General rule:
Unless he assents thereto, a party to an action cannot be
affected by the admission of a person who does not occupy
toward him any relation of privity, agency, or joint interest. The
act, declaration or omission of another is generally irrelevant
and that in justice a person should not be bound by the acts of
mere unauthorized strangers.
61
Exceptions:
 Admission by a co-partner
 Admission by an agent
 Admission by joint owner or debtor or one
jointly interested
 Admission by conspirator
 Admission by privies
Section 29.Admission by co-partner or agent. — The act or
declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope
of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or
agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such
act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or
declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly
interested with the party.
Requisites for the rule
Admission by partner
 That the partnership be previously proven by evidence
other than the admission itself
 That the admission refers to a matter within the scope of
his authority
 That the admission was made during the existence of the
partnership
Reason for the rule
The admissions of one partner are received against another,
not on the ground that they are parties to the record, but on the
ground that they are identified in interest, and that each is
agent for the other, and that the acts or declarations of one
during the existence of the partnership, while transacting, while
transacting its business and within the scope of the business
are evidence against the other or others.
Admission by agent
 that the agency be previously proved by
evidence other than the admission itself
 that the admission refers to a matter within
the scope of his authority
 that the admission was made during the
existence of the agency
Reason for the rule
As a general rule parties are not chargeable with the
declarations of the agents, unless such declarations or
statement are made during the transaction of business by the
agent for the principal and in relation to such business, and
while within the scope of agency. In other words, what is so
done, by an agent, is done by the principal through him, as a
mere instrument.
Admission by joint owner, joint debtor, or other person
jointly interested with the party
 that there exists a joint interest between the joint owner,
joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the part
and such party, which joint inter must first be made to
appear by evidence other than the act of declaration itself
 that the act or declaration was made while the interest was
subsisting
 that the act relate to the subject matter of the joint interest
for otherwise it would be immaterial and irrelevant
Person jointly interested with the party
The mere fact that several persons have a common interest,
as contradistinguished from a joint interest, in the subject
matter involved in the suit, does not render their admissions
competent against each other. This is properly true with regard
to rights under will.
There may be many legatees and devisees, but, although they
derive their benefit from a common source (testator) they
clearly have no rights based on the benefit of each other. They
have interest in common in that each derives his interest form
the same source; but plainly they have no joint interest through
any relation inter se.
Section 30.Admission by conspirator. — The act or
declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and
during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-
conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other
than such act of declaration.
Requisites of the rule
 that the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than
the admission itself
 that the admission relates to the common object
 it has been made while the declarant was engaged in
carrying out the conspiracy
Two requisites are necessary for the existence of a
conspiracy
 determination or decision to act, that is, a definite purpose
to commit a crime
 agreement or meeting of the minds of two or more
persons
Jurisprudence:
People vs. Carbonel (43 Phil. 65, 78)
If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts
towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each
doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent,
were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness
of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a
conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among
them to concert means is proved.
Radin vs. U.S., 189 Fed. 568, 570 111 CCA 6
Conspirators do not go out upon the public highways and
proclaim their intentions. They accomplish their purpose by
dark and sinister methods and must be judged by their acts.
62
People vs. Catao, G.R. No. L-9532 June 30, 1960
It is enough that from the individual acts of each accused, it
may be reasonably deduced that they had a common plan to
commit the felony.
People vs. Silvestre (56 Phil. 353)
It is well-known rule that, without the proof of conspiracy, mere
passive presence at the scene of another’s crime does not
constitute complicity.
Failure to prove conspiracy
People vs. Caayao, (G.R. No. L-4035, December 16, 1949)
Where there is lack of proof of conspiracy, the responsibility of
the accused is individual and each is liable for the result of his
act in the degree and manner of participation.
Section 31.Admission by privies. — 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.
Privity and privies defined
Privity means mutual succession of relationship to the same
right of property.
Privies are those who have mutual or successive relationship
to the same right of property or subject matter, such as
personal representative, heirs, devisees, legatees, assignes,
voluntary grantees or judgement creditors or purchases from
them with notice of the facts.
Reason for the rule
It is an established rule of evidence that the declarations of a
person under whom title is claimed are receivable against the
successor so claiming, on the theory that there is sufficient
identity of interest to render the statements of the former
equally receivable with the admissions of the present owner,
and that the rights of the latter are those, and only those, of the
former.
The principle on which such evidence is received is that the
declarant was so situated that he probably knew the truth, and
his interest were such that he would not have made the
admissions to the prejudice of his title or possession, unless
they were true. The regard which one so situated would have
to his interest is considered sufficient security against
falsehood.
Limitations of rule
The most important limitations upon the admission in evidence
of admissions of a predecessor in interest, or other privy, is
that such evidence is not admissible to contradict the terms of
written instrument, as for example, to vary the tenor of a deed
or destroy the record title.
It would be an anomaly in our law if by the rules of evidence,
titles to real estate can be made to depend on the mere
declaration of a prior owner, when every contact for the sale of
land is required to be in writing and title can only be conveyed
by deed. Such declarations are not admissible to affect the title
to lands, although they may be admitted to explain the
character of a possession.
Hence, in as much as the basis of admissibility of the
statement is privity, it cannot be used against on who claims no
under, but against the interest derived from the grantor. Such a
claim cannot be affected be the mere declarations of the holder
of an adverse title which, in that case, are akin to self- serving
statement.
Three exceptions are recognized to the rule that declarations
of the transferor, made subsequent to the transfer, are
admissible:
 where the declarations are made in the presence of the
transferee and he acquiesces in the statements, or asserts
no rights where he ought to speak
 Where there has been a prima facie case of fraud
established as where the thing granted has a corpus and the
possession of the thing after the sale or transfer, remains
with the seller or transferor.
 Where the evidence establishes a continuing conspiracy
to defraud, which conspiracy exists between the vendor and
the vendee
Section 32.Admission by silence. —An act or declaration
made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of
a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is
such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and
when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in
evidence against him.
Requisites of the rule
 That he heard and understood the statement
 That he was at liberty to interpose a denial
 That the statement was in respect to some matter
affecting his rights or in which he as ten interested, and
calling, naturally, for an answer
 That the facts were within his knowledge
 That the facts admitted or the inference to be drawn
from his silence would be material to the issue.
Reason for the rule
The rule that the silence of a party against who a claim or a
right is asserted may be construed as an admission of the truth
of the assertion rests on that instinct of nature, which leads us
to resist an unfounded demand. The rule rests on that
universal principle of human conduct which leads us to repel
an unfounded imputation or claim.
Rule applicable in criminal as well as in civil cases
63
 The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as The warning of the right to remain silent must be
an implied admission of the truth of the allegation uttered in his accompanied by the explanation that anything said
presence is applicable in criminal as well as in civil cases. can and will be used against the individual court.
9. Warning of right to counsel. –An individual held for
RULE 130 interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the
right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer
SECTION 33 Confession. – The declaration of an accused with him during interrogation under the system for
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any protecting the privilege.
offense necessarily included therein, may be given in 10. Waiver of rights. – If the interrogation continues
evidence against him. without the presence of an attorney and a statement
is taken, a heavy burden on the government to
1. Source. – Reproduction of Section 29, Rule 130 of
demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and
the Rules of Court
intelligently waived his privilege against self-
2. Confession defined. – Confession is an
incrimination and his right to retain or appointed
acknowledgement by the accused that he is guilty of
counsel.
the crime charged.
A valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the
3. Confession distinguished from admission. –A
silence of the accused after warnings are given or
“confession” is a declaration made at any time by a
simply from the fact that a confession was in fact
person voluntarily, stating or acknowledging that he
eventually obtained.
has committed or participated in the commission of a
11. United States court decision since Miranda. –
crime. The term “admission,” on the other hand, is
Please read Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436, 86 S.
usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact
Ct. 1602)
by the accused which do not directly involve an
(a) CUSTODY REQUIREMENT - The Miranda Court
acknowledgement of guilt of the accused or of
limited its holding to situations in which “a person
criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is
has been taken into custody or otherwise
charged.
deprived of his freedom of action in any
4. Confession classified. – 2 kinds of confession:
significant way.”
a. Judicial confession – those made in conformity to
(b) INTERROGATION – An accused may not yet be
law before a committing magistrate or in court in
entitled to the Miranda wanings, due to the fact
the course of legal proceedings
that no interrogation as “questioning initiated by
b. Extrajudicial confession – those which are made
law enforcement officers.” A statement freely and
by a party elsewhere than before a magistrate or
voluntarily made without compelling influence is
in court.
admissible into evidence.
5. Form of confession. –A confession is not required to
(c) WARNINGS – It is the point when the accused is
be in any particular form. It may be oral or written,
in custody and the police wish to interrogate him
formal or informal in character.
that Miranda requires the warnings to be given.
6. Rights of a person under investigation. – Under
The warnings need not be given word for word to
the Constitution, “any person under investigation for
the accused, though substantial compliance is
the commission of an offense shall have the right to
required.
be informed of his rights to remain silent and to have
(d) WAIVER – After warnings are given, Miranda
competent and independent counsel preferably of his
presents the accused with three options. He can
own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
waive his right to remain silent and to an attorney
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
and talk to the police, prevent police questioning
cannot be waived except in writing and in the
by asserting his right to remain silent, or prevent
presence of counsel.”
questioning by asking for an attorney.
7. Miranda requirements. – In order to combat the
(e) TERMINATION OF AND BREAKS IN THE
pressures and to permit a full opportunity to exercise
INTERROGATION – After Miranda, the accused
the privilege against self-incrimination, the accused
may terminate the interrogation by request.
must be adequately and effectively apprised of his
(f) PRESENCE OF COUNSEL – The presence of
rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully
counsel is “the adequate protective device
honored. (Please read Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.
necessary to make the process of police
436, 1996)
interrogation conforms to the dictates of the
8. Warning of silence. – If a person in custody is to be
privilege.”
subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in
(g) FURTHER DEFINING THE SCOPE OF
clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to
MIRANDA – The Miranda decision did not limit its
remain silent. For those unaware of the privilege, the
holding only to certain kinds of offenses, though
warning is needed simply to make them aware of it.
some lower courts have held that warnings are
inapplicable to misdemeanors or traffic violations.
64
 (h) IMPACT OF MIRANDA ON OTHER
STANDARDS – The Miranda holding impinged
upon several court and legislatively created rules.
(i) CONCLUSIONS – The law of confessions has
moved from the case-by-case, totality of the
circumstances analysis that existed under the
due process voluntariness approach to the
application of the definite standards announced
in the Miranda opinion.
As the law of confessions stands now, after
Miranda:
(1) Uncensored admissions are admissible if
made before an individual is in custody or if
they are spontaneous in the sense that an
interrogation by the police has not yet begun.
(2) However, admissions that occur during a
custodial interrogation are not admissible to
establish guilt unless the accused is given
the Miranda warnings.
(3) Waiver of the Miranda right must be
voluntary and intelligent.
(4) The accused has the right to stop an
interrogation at any time, which can be
accomplished merely by refusing to answer
questions or by asking to see an attorney.
(5) As a general rule, confessions that were
voluntarily made under a “totality of the
circumstances” test.
12. Constitutional provision (Miranda doctrine) has
no retroactive effect. – A confession obtained before
the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, even if
accused had not been informed of his right to
counsel, is admissible in evidence.
13. Basic test for validity of confession. – The basic
test for the validity of a confession is – was it
voluntarily and freely made.
14. No presumption of voluntariness. – The
prosecution must prove that an extrajudicial
confession was voluntarily given, instead of relying on
a presumption and requiring the accused to offset it.
15. Threats, violence, torture or fear. – Confessions
obtained by putting the accused in fear by means of
threats of violence to the person of the accused made
to obtain his confession are generally inadmissible in
evidence since they are involuntary in character.
Threats, violence, torture or fear
- Any confession or admission by the accused
obtained through torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidations, any other means which vitiates the
free will shall be inadmissible as evidence
against him.
(a) Confession secured by “third-degree” methods
Examples:
1. Confession secured from an accused
after he had been subjected to almost
continuous examination by police
officers.
2. One secured by a protracted searching
examination by public officials
accompanied by threats, invective and
false statements and profanity.
3. One secured by questioning a suspect
throughout a night and hitting him with
clubs.
-Confessions extracted through these means
is inadmissible in evidence.
(b) Promise of benefit or reward
- A confession induced or influenced by promises
made to the accused which hold out a hope of
benefit or a reward or a promise of immunity is
not a voluntary confession and is not admissible
in evidence
(c) What constitutes benefit
- The term “benefit”, when used in connection with
the procurement of a confession, means a
temporal or worldly benefit. To make the
confession involuntary, the benefit which
influences a confession must not only be
temporal, but have reference to the person’s
escape from punishment for the crime with which
he is charged or his partial escape.
(d) Offer of reward or pardon
- A confession influenced by the promise of a
pardon is involuntary and inadmissible in
evidence against the person making it.
(e) Promise of immunity or not to prosecute or to
compromise
- A promise not to prosecute the accused or to
compromise the matter, made by the person
personally injured by the commission of the
offense, might well be deemed to create such a
hope of benefit as would render the statement of
the accused of doubtful credibility.
(f) Deception or promise of secrecy
- The employment of any artifice, deception, or
fraud to obtain a confession does not render it
inadmissible, if the means employed are not
calculated to procure an untrue statement.
(g) Advice and exhortation to confess or tell the truth
- A confession is not rendered involuntary by
telling the accused that it would be better for him
to speak or tell the truth nor a sufficient
inducement to render objectionable a confession
thereby obtained, unless threats or promises are
applied.
(h) Effect of refusal to keep the agreement to turn
state’s witness
- If a confession is obtained on the assurance that
the accused will be used as a state’s witness and
he afterwards repudiates the agreement, such
65
 confession may be used against him as a
voluntary confession.
(i) Threats to prosecute
- A common form of threat which renders a
confession involuntary is that the accused will be
prosecuted if he does not confess. But it is clear
that an unconditional threat to prosecute does not
render a resulting confession of involuntary.
(j) Force or violence need not be inflicted upon the
confessor
- If within his hearing and almost in his immediate
presence, physical violence is inflicted upon his
co-defendant, his confession made thereafter
should be rejected for lack of that free and
voluntary character which would otherwise give it
value as evidence.
(k) Age, mental condition, or intelligence of
confessor
- Upon the question whether a confession is
voluntary, the age, the character and situation of
the accused at the time the confession was made
is an important consideration.
(l) Insanity
- While the mere fact that the accused is not in the
full possession of his faculties at the time of a
confession does not necessarily render it
inadmissible or involuntary, evidence of insanity
or mental weakness which would be sufficient to
render the defendant incompetent to testify is
sufficient to render his confession incompetent
(m) Mental incapacity
- A confession may be involuntary because of
ignorance or mental incapacity of the accused at
the time of making the confession sought to be
introduce in evidence.
(n) Intoxication
- The intoxicated condition of the accused at the
time of making a confession does not, unless
such intoxication goes to the extent of mania,
affect the admissibility in evidence of such
confession if it was otherwise a voluntary one,
although the fact of intoxication may affect its
weight and credibility with the court.
(o) Confession made while asleep
- Words uttered by the accused while sleeping are
involuntary and cannot be admitted in evidence
against him as a confession.
16. Admonition to judges, fiscals and other officers
- Judges, fiscals and other officers to whom
persons accused of a crime are brought for
swearing the truth of their statements “ to adopt
the practice of having the confessants physically
and thoroughly examined by independent and
qualified doctors before administering the oath,
even if it is not requested by the accused.
Purpose: Shorten and speed up criminal trials (
where the accused persons almost invariably
repudiate their confessions) by precluding future
controversies on whether the statements were
obtained through torture or not.
17. Proving confession
- An oral admission on the part of an accused
indicating guilty complicity in the commission of
the crime with which he is charged is admissible
in evidence, though not reduced to writing, or if
reduced into writing, though not signed by him.
18. Burden of proof
- The heavy burden is on the prosecution because
the State is responsible for establishing the
isolated circumstance under which the
interrogation takes place and has the only means
of making available corroborated evidence of
warnings given during communicado
interrogation.
19. The exclusionary rule
- The constitution provides that “any confession or
admission obtained in violation of this or section
17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.
20. Confession of third persons
- A confession on the part of a third person that he
committed the crime which the defendant is
charged with having committed, even though it is
made in expectation of imminent death or by a
person jointly indicted with the accused, is not
admissible as substantive evidence tending to
exculpate the accused where the confession
does not constitute a part of res gestae.
21. Several confessions
- The rule is that if one confession is obtained by
such methods as to make it involuntary, all
subsequent confessions made while the accused
is under operation of the same influence are also
involuntary. However, a confession otherwise
voluntary is not affected by the fact that a
previous one was obtained by improper
influences if it is shown that these influences are
not operating when the later confession is made.
22. Partial or unfinished confession
- A partial or unfinished confession which was
interrupted while the defendants was rendering it
is not admissible in evidence.
66
23. Confession learned through an interpreter
- A confession cannot be received in evidence by
the testimony of a witness who, although present
when it was made, learned its purport through an
interpreter. Such testimony is hearsay evidence
and therefore inadmissible.
24. Confession subsequent to an involuntary
confession
- Where a confession has been obtained from the
accused by improper inducement, any statement
made by him while under that influence is
inadmissible.
25. Confession of other crimes
- A confession of an offense different from that with
which the accused is charged is not admissible
on his trial for the offense charged unless such
other offense is a part of the same scheme or so
connected with the one charged as not to be
severed from it.
26. Identification and introduction of confession as
evidence
- Before a confession will be admitted into
evidence, the prosecution must prove the making
thereof if accused objects that the confession
was not in fact made by him. In laying a predicate
for the admission of a confession, it is proper for
the prosecution, as a preliminary question, to
inquire whether a confession was made at the
time and place of the making of the confession
and the persons present.
27. Confession must be introduced in evidence in its
entirety
- The whole confession must be put in evidence by
the prosecuting officer. To allow the introduction
of fragments of a confession admitting those
indicative of the prisoner’s criminality and
suppressing others which, by limiting or
modifying the former, may establish his
30. Waiver of objection as to admissibility
innocence, is utterly inconsistent with all
principles of justice and humanity.
28. Confessions admissible against confessor alone
- While the confession of one of several co-
accused may be introduced in evidence against
31. Determination of admissibility of confession
him, it is not competent evidence against his co-
accused.
29. When confession of an accused is admissible
against his co-accused
- The general rule that the confession of an
accused may be given in evidence against him
but that it is not competent evidence against his
co-accused, recognizes various exceptions:
(1) When several accused are tried together, the
confession made by one of them during the
trial implicating the others is evidence
against the latter.
(2) When one of the defendant is charged from
the information and testifies as a witness for
the prosecution, the confession made in the
course of his testimony is admissible against
his co-defendants, if corroborated by
indisputable proof.
(3) If a defendant, after having been apprised of
the confessions of his co-defendant, ratifies
or confirms said confession, the same is
admissible against him.
(4) Where several extrajudicial confessions
have been made by several persons
charged with an offense and there could
have been no collusion with reference to
said several confessions, the facts that the
statements therein are in all material
respects, identical, is confirmatory of the
confession of the co-defendant and is
admissible against co-defendants. This is
commonly known as “Interlocking
confession.”
(5) A statement made by one defendant after his
arrest, in the presence of his co-defendant,
confessing his guilt and implicating his co-
defendant who failed to contradict or deny it,
is admissible against his co-defendant.
(6) When the confession is of a conspirator and
made after conspiracy and in furtherance of
its object, the same is admissible against his
co-conspirator.
(7) The confession of one conspirator made
after the termination of a conspiracy, is
admissible against his co-conspirator if made
in his presence and assented to by him, or
admitted its truth or failed to contradict or
deny it.
- A confession offered in evidence and not
objected to by the defendant is regarded as
prima facie voluntary and therefore, admissible in
evidence.
67
 - The test of a confession’s admissibility is not the
weight of the testimony or the credibility of the
witness, but the testimonial unworthiness of the
confession.
32. Weight and sufficiency of judicial confession
- The essence of the plea of guilty in a criminal trial
is that the accused, on arraignment, admits his
guilt freely, voluntarily, and with full knowledge of
the consequences and meaning of his act, and
with a clear understanding of the precise nature
of the crime or crimes charged in the complaint or
information.
- Such a plea of guilty, when formally entered on
arraignment, is sufficient to sustain a conviction
of any offense charged in the information.
33. Weight and sufficiency of extrajudicial
confessions
- An extrajudicial confession made by an accused,
shall not be sufficient ground for conviction,
unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
Section 34.Similar acts as evidence. – Evidence that one did
or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible
to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar
thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a
specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system,
scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
1. Source
This provision is a reproduction of Section 48, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court with the following differences:
a. The title of the section “Evidence of similar acts”
has been changed to “Similar acts as evidence” in the
present.
b. The words “omitted to” in the Rules of Court have
been deleted in the present provision;
c. The words “did not” have been added in the
present provision.
2. In general
The general rule is that the law will not consider
evidence that a person has done a certain act at a particular
time as probative of a contention that he has done a similar act
at another time.
However, there is no rule of law which prevents the trial of
collateral issues, since the objection thereto is purely a
practical one, and the general rule is that the admission of
evidence of similar acts or occurrences as proof that a
particular act was done or that a certain occurrence happened,
rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, provided the
conditions are substantially the same.
3. Reasons for the rule
 It is improper for the court to assume that the motive
of the previous crimes is continuing and is the basis
of the present crime.
 If evidence of previous crimes is to be used, the
accused shall face charges which he has no
information and confuses him in his defense.
 Evidence of collateral matters must not be received
as substantive evidence of the offenses in the
present trial.
4. Rule must be strictly enforced
 The general rule is that evidence is not admissible
which shows that the accused in a criminal case has
committed a crime wholly independent of the offense
of the present trial.
 A man may have committed many crimes, and still be
innocent of the crime presently charged.
 One who commits one crime may be more likely to
commit another; yet, logically, one crime does not
prove another, nor tend to prove another, unless there
is such a relation between them that proof of one
tends to prove the other.
5. Exceptions to the general rule
 Evidence of other crimes is always admissible when
such evidence:
a. tends directly to establish the particular crime;
b. it is usually competent to prove the
 motive and intent;
 the absence of mistake or accident;
 a common scheme or plan embracing
two or more crime so related to each
other; or,
 the identity of the person charged with
the commission of the crime on trial.
 When the fact of a former crime is an element in the
offense charged.
6. Prior acts showing intent
 Intent is of course entirely distinct from intention
(design, plan). The latter is almost always an
evidential fact only, but the former is a fact-in-issue,
being usually an element of the offense or of the evil
act done.
 Intent is a specific state of mind at the very time of the
act charged.
Examples:
68
 a. In a shooting, the nature of the offense depends
on the state of mind as to aiming at a person, or
just cleaning the gun, etc.;
b. In the delivery of money, the intent at that time
determines whether it is a payment, or a loan or a
deposit.
 The person’s conduct is naturally the chief
circumstantial evidence of this intent – as it is also of
a plan.
7. Prior acts showing guilty knowledge
 Evidence which tends to show scienter or such
knowledge on the part of the accused as is necessary
to constitute his act a crime is admissible.
Examples:
a. On a charge against X, a clerk, of stealing from
his employer’s sage, the safe having been
opened by manipulating the combination lock, X
denied having knowledge of such combination.
Here the fact that X had been seen on a previous
instance of surreptitiously opening the safe would
be admissible to show his knowledge.
b. On a charge against Z of uttering counterfeit
money, to wit, a 100-peso bill, the fact that Z had
tried on other previous occasions, but
unsuccessfully, to pay out similar bills to A, B,
and C is admissible to evidence his knowledge of
the bill in issue being counterfeit.
8. Identification of accused by proof of other crimes
General Rule: Evidence of separate and independent
crimes is inadmissible to prove the guilt of a
person upon trial for a criminal offense.
Exceptions:
 When evidence tends to aid in identifying the accused
as the person who committed the particular crime
under investigation.
 There is a logical connection between the crimes that
proof on one will naturally tend to show that the
accused is the person who committed the other.
9. Prior acts showing plan, design, or scheme
Evidence of other crimes is competent in a criminal trial to
prove the specific crime charged when it tends to establish a
common scheme, plan, or system embracing the commission
of two or more crimes so related to each other than proof of
one tends to establish the others, notwithstanding the general
rule excluding evidence which shows, or tends to show that the
accused has committed another crime wholly independent of
that for which he is on trial.
10. Prior acts showing habit or customs
Evidence of a course of conduct or dealing may be admitted
where pertinent to an issue in the case when it fits as deemed
by the court.
Customs may, like any other facts or circumstances be shown
when their existence will increase or diminish the probability of
an act having been done or not done, which act is the subject
of contest.
11. Prior acts showing negligence
Upon a criminal prosecution for injuries caused by negligence,
evidence of other acts, disconnected though similar, is
irrelevant. However, when a party is charged with the
negligent use of a dangerous agency, and the case against
him is that he did not use care proportionate to the danger,
then the question becomes material whether he knew, or ought
to have known, the extent of danger.
12. Proof of subsequent offenses
According to one of the authorities, evidence of offenses
committed subsequent to the act charged is never admissible
in evidence. Other authorities favor the admissibility of such
proof in certain instances, as in the case of offenses arising out
of sexual intercourse, upon the theory that subsequent acts
disclose the disposition of the parties.
13. Rule the same in civil cases as well as in criminal
prosecution
In civil cases the rule as to proof of commission of an act by
showing the commission of similar acts by the same person at
other times and under other circumstances is the same as in a
criminal prosecution.
Section 35. Unaccepted offer. – 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.
1. Source
This provision is a reproduction of Section 49, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court with the only difference that the phrase “without
valid cause” has been added in the present provision.
2. Civil Code provision
If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made
refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be
released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or
sum due.
69
According to the above provision, tender of payment must
precede consignation, and only when such tender is refused
without just cause will the consignation of the thing or sum due
release the debtor from his obligation.
Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal
knowledge; hearsay excluded. – A witness can testify only
to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge,
that is, which are derived from his own perception, except
as otherwise provided in these rules
1. Source
The word “own” in the Rules of Court has been deleted in the
present provision and the word “personal” has been added.
2. Generally
The witness can testify only to those facts which he knows
from his personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from
his own perception.
3. Hearsay evidence
 Hearsay evidence has been defined as evidence which
derives its value, not solely from the credit to be given to
the witness upon the stand, but in part from the veracity
and competency of some other persons.
 Hearsay is not limited to oral testimony. A writing may
be hearsay.
 Evidence is hearsay when its probative value depends
in whole or in part, on the competency and credibility of
some persons other that the witness.
 Hearsay evidence is the evidence not of what the
witnesses knows himself but of what he has heard from
others.
4. Reason for excluding hearsay evidence
 One reason is the fact that hearsay testimony is not
subject to the tests which can ordinarily be applied for
the ascertainment of the truth of testimony, since the
declarant is not present and available for cross-
examination.
 The court is without opportunity to test the credibility
of hearsay statements by observing the demeanor of
the person who made them.
5. Independently relevant statements
 The hearsay rule does not apply where, regardless of
the truth or the falsity of a statement, the fact that it
has been made is relevant, the hearsay rule does not
apply, but the statement may be shown.
Groups
a. Those statements which are the very facts in
issue; and,
b. Those statements which are circumstantial
evidence of the facts in issue.
6. Statements which are the very facts in issue
 Where the statements, or utterances of specific
words, are the facts in issue, the testimony of
witnesses thereto is not hearsay.
 In other words, if the fact sought to be established is,
that certain words were spoken, without reference to
the truth or falsity of the words, the testimony of any
person who heard the statement is original evidence
and not hearsay.
7. Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the
facts in issue
 The statements from which the facts in issue may be
inferred, may be testified to by witnesses without
violating the hearsay rule. Of this kind are:
a. Statements of a person showing his state of
mind, that is his mental condition, knowledge,
belief, intention and other emotions;
b. Statements of a person which show his physical
condition, as illness and the like;
c. Statements of a person from which an inference
may be made as to the state of mind of another,
that is, knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad
faith, etc. of the latter;
d. Those which may identify the date, place, and
person in question; and,
e. Those showing the lack of credibility of a witness.
8. Statements showing the speaker’s state of mind
A man’s state of mind or feeling can only be manifested to
others by countenance, attitude or gesture, or by sounds or
words, spoken or written.
9. Statements showing the speaker’s physical condition
 Statements of a person which may fairly show his
bodily condition at the time he made the statements
are admissible as circumstantial evidence of such
condition.
 When the bodily or mental feelings of an individual
are material to be proved, the usual expression of
such feelings are original and competent evidence.
10. Statements of a person from which the state of mind
of another may be inferred
Pertains to knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of
the latter may be testified to by a witness without violating the
hearsay rule.
70
11. Statements identifying the time, date, place, or person
in question
May be validly testified to by the witness.
12. Statements of a witness impeaching his credibility
 Statements made out of court are admitted for the
purpose of contradicting or impeaching a witness.
 A witness may be impeached by the party against
whom he was called . . . by evidence that he had
made at other times statements, inconsistent with
present testimony . . .
13. Evidence of acting upon a statement, not hearsay
If the statement is introduced for the purpose of establishing
the fact that a party relied and acted thereon, it is not
objectionable on the ground of hearsay.
14. Statements made through interpreter, not hearsay
Reason: Both the original witness and the interpreter are
under oath and subject to cross-examination.
Exceptions:
a. The interpreter had been selected by common
consent of the parties endeavoring to converse; or,
b. By the party against whom the statements of the
interpreter were offered in evidence.
15. Presumption that testimony is not hearsay
In the absence of any showing to the contrary, a witness is
presumed to be testifying of his own knowledge.
16. Objection to hearsay cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal
The failure of a party to object to the admission of hearsay
evidence constitutes a waiver of his right to make such
objection, and, consequently, the evidence offered may be
admitted. Objection to its admission made for the first time on
appeal is too late.
17. Weight of hearsay evidence admitted without
objection
 The Supreme Court held that although the question of
admissibility of evidence cannot raised for the first time on
appeal, yet if the evidence is hearsay, it has no probative
value and should be disregarded whether objected or not.
18. Multiple hearsay
There is no good reason why a hearsay declaration, which
within itself contains a hearsay statement, should not be
admissible to prove the truth of the included statement, if both
the statement and the included statement meet the tests of an
exception to the hearsay rule.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
Section 37. Dying declaration. – The declaration of a dying
person, made under the consciousness of an impending
death, may be received in any case wherein his death is
the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such death.
1. Dying declaration defined
A dying declaration is a statement made by the victim of
homicide, referring to the material facts which concern the
cause and circumstances of the killing and which is uttered
under a belief of an impending death.
2. Reasons for admissibility
a. Necessity – because the declarant’s death renders
impossible his taking the witness stand; and it happens often
that there is o other equally satisfactory proof of the crime.
b. Trustworthiness – since the declaration is made in
extremity, when the party is at the point of death and every
hope of this world is gone; when every motive to falsehood is
silenced, and the mind is induced by the most powerful
considerations to speak the truth.
3. Admission of dying declarations not unconstitutional
It does not violate the constitutional right of the accused to
confront and cross-examine the witness against him, because
the person who testifies to the dying declarations is the witness
against the accused and the witness with whom the accused is
entitled to be confronted.
4. Scope
Only in homicide cases for the killing of the declarant and now
its extended to civil cases.
5. Conditions of admission of dying declarations
The conditions are as follows:
a. That death be imminent and that declarant be
conscious of that fact;
b. That the preliminary facts which bring the
declaration within its scope be made to appear;
c. That the declaration relate to the facts or
circumstances pertaining to the fatal injury or
death; and,
d. That declarant would have been competent to
testify had he survived.
6. Form of dying declarations
 No particular form is required.
71
  A dying declaration may be a communication by
means of signs, an oral statement or ejaculation, a
mere formal statement, or answers to questions put
by the person to whom the declaration is made, a
writing signed by the declarant, or an affidavit.
7. Introduction of dying declaration in evidence by the
prosecution
 A proper predicate must be laid for the introduction of
dying declaration. The proper predicate is the proof
that the declarant has made his declaration under a
consciousness of impending death.
 It is generally a sufficient predicate to show, by the
repeated assertions of the declarant, that he was
about to die; it may be laid by showing that the
surrounding circumstances were of such a character
as to satisfy the court that the declarant believed that
he would die.
8. Introduction of dying declarations in evidence by the
accused
 It is settled by a long line of decisions that dying
declarations, when they tend to exculpate or
exonerate the defendant, may be introduced by him.
 If such declarations are competent evidence to prove
facts, it does not matter if such proof tends to acquit
the defendant, rather than convict him.
9. When declaration of a dying man may be admissible
not as a dying declaration but as part of res gestae
Where a man after having been seriously wounded was taken
to a municipal building and there he told a person in authority
that he had been wounded by the accused that statement,
although not admissible as dying declaration because it was
not made in the belief that the declarant was about to die, yet it
is admissible as part of the res gestae.
10. Impeachment of dying declarations
Dying declarations, when admitted, are subject to
impeachment in the same manner and for the same causes
that the testimony of a witness given on the witness stand may
be impeached.
11. Weight of dying declarations
 Dying declarations are given great weight since it is
made at the point of death.
 Courts, however, must not be unmindful of the fact
that men on the very threshold of death had
sometimes been swayed by a spirit of vindictive
revenge or heated passion or by a desire to shield
themselves or others even in making ante-mortem
statements.
Section 38. Declaration against interest. – The declaration
made by a person deceased, or unable to testify, against
the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the
declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to
declarant’s own interest, that a reasonable man in his
position would not have made the declaration unless he
believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against
himself or his successors in interest and against third
persons.
1. Source
This is a reproduction of Section 33, Rule 130 of the Rules with
the difference that the phrase “or outside the Philippines” and
the words “pecuniary or moral” have been deleted in the
present provision.
2. Reasons for the rule
The necessity of the occasion renders the reception of such
evidence advisable and, further that the reliability of such
declarations asserts facts which are against his own pecuniary
or moral interest.
3. Declaration against interest distinguished from
admission
a. The admission is not necessarily against the interest of the
person who made the admission, while the present exception
must be a declaration against interest;
b. An admission may be used although the admitter is still
alive, while the present exception refers to a declaration
against interest of a deceased person; and,
c. An admission may be used only against the admitter and
those identified with him in legal interest while a declaration
against interest admissible against third persons.
4. Declaration against interest distinguished from self-
serving declaration
A self-serving declaration is a statement favorable to that
interest of the declarant and not admissible while a declaration
against the interest is admissible in evidence, notwithstanding
its hearsay character, only if the declarant has died, become
insane, or for some other reason is not available as a witness.
5. Scope
It is safe to assume that the declaration against interest under
the present provision has been expanded to include all kinds,
i.e., pecuniary, proprietary, moral or penal interests.
72
6. Requisites for the admissibility of declarations against
interest
a. Declarant must not be available to testify.
 As in the case when he is dead, mentally
incapacitated, physically incompetent, of
advanced age, or other irremediable cause.
b. The declaration must concern a fact
cognizable by declarant
 It is essential to relevancy in the declaration
that the declarant should have adequate
knowledge with respect to the subject
covered by his statement.
c. The circumstances must render it improbable
that a motive to falsify existed.
 To be admissible, there should be a
circumstantial guaranty of the
trustworthiness of the declaration.
7. Declarations against pecuniary interest
Pertains to those which may bar in whole or in part the
declarant’s money claim, or which may give rise to a monetary
claim against him, as for instance, where he acknowledges
that his credit is already paid or that he is indebted to some
person.
8. Declarations against proprietary interest
Those which are at variance with the declarant’s property
rights, as for instance, where he, being in possession of a
chattel or a piece of land, declares that he is not the owner
thereof, or that he is holding it as a mere trustee, or that he has
already sold it, and the like.
9. Declarations against moral interest
Moral interest should not be confused with moral obligation,
which is a duty which one owes, and which he ought to
perform, but which he is not legally bound to fulfill. For
instance, where a man owes a debt barred by the statute of
limitations, this cannot be recovered by law, though it subsists
in morality and conscience.
10. Declarations against penal interest
 This cannot be justified on grounds of policy. The only
plausible reason of policy that has ever been
advanced for such a limitation is the possibility of
procuring fabricated testimony to such an admission if
oral.
 The inclusion of declarations against penal interest in
the exception for declarations against interest has
raised a host of intertwined constitutional and
evidentiary problems in the United States.
 See People v. Toledo (51 Phils. 825).
11. Contrary to interest
3 Methods in Handling Declaration containing both self-
serving and disserving facts:
1. Admit the entire declaration because part is
disserving and hence by a kind of contagion of
truthfulness, all will be trustworthy.
2. Compare the strength of the self-serving interest
and the disserving interest in making the
statement as a whole, and admit it all if the self-
serving interest is greater.
3. Admit the disserving parts of the declaration, and
exclude the self-serving facts.
The third solution seems the most realistic method.
12. Form of declaration against interest
 May be oral or written.
 Form is immaterial provided all the essential
requisites for its admissibility are present.
Sec. 39 .
Act or Declaration about Pedigree.
The act or declaration of a person deceased, or
unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another
person related to him by birth or marriage, may be
received in evidence where it occurred before the
controversy, and the relationship between the two
persons is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. The word "pedigree" includes
relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death,
the dates when and the places where these fast
occurred, and the names of the relatives. It embraces
also facts of family history intimately connected with
pedigree.
Pedigree defined.
- It is the history of the family descent which is transmitted
from one generation to another by both oral and written
declarations and by traditions.
- May includes relationship, family genealogy, birth,
marriage, death, the dates when and places where these
facts occurred, the names of the relatives, and the facts of
family history intimately connected.
- Includes also paternity and legitimacy.
Reason of Admissibility
To avoid a failure of justice, as greater evils are apprehended
from the rejection of such proof than from its admission and
that individuals are generally supposed to know and to be
73
interested in those facts of family history about which they
converse, and that they are generally under little temptation to
state untruths in respect to such matter.
Requisites for Admissibility
a) Declarant is dead or unable to testify
- Declarations will not be received when better
evidence is available, in case his alive and able his
direct testimony is considered a better evidence.
- The fact that there are living members of the family
who could be examined on the same point does not
exclude the declaration.
- Declarations are admissible when the declarant is
dead, outside of the Philippines, or when his
testimony is unobtainable, like when he becomes
insane, declarations made before his insanity are
admissible.
b) Necessity that pedigree be in issue
- Generally, declarations as to pedigree can be
received only where pedigree itself is directly in
issue.
- However, in many cases the fact that pedigree is
relevant to the issue is sufficient to admit in evidence
and as to matters of genealogy or facts incidentally
or inferentially connected therewith, such as the
dates of genealogical importance, such as births,
deaths, and marriage, took places, names, number,
residence of a branch of the family, or their
ownership of property, regardless of whether
pedigree is separately in issue.
c) Declarant must be a relative of the person whose
pedigree is in question
- Generally, declarations as to pedigree to be
admissible, it must have been made by someone
related to the family concerned, it is enough if some
relationship is shown, although the declarations of
very remote relatives entitled to very little weight.
- Relationship of declarant to the family may be by birth
or by affinity. Hence, the declaration of the husband
regarding the pedigree of his wife and his wife’s
relatives and vice versa, is admissible. But
declarations of the husband’s relatives regarding the
pedigree of the wife’s relatives, or vice versa, are not
admissible.
- If it appears that the evidence offered does not
emanate from someone related to the family
concerned, the presumption of the reliability of the
source of information is rebutted and the evidence
becomes inadmissible.
- Courts will not receive declarations as to pedigree
made by intimate friends or neighbors, or even by
persons living in the family or by servants, however
trustworthy or long he has been employed by the
family.
d) Declarant must be made before the controversy occurred
- Generally, declarations to be received in proof of
pedigree requires that the declarations must have
been made ante litem motam (before suit brought),
before the controversy, and under such
circumstances that the person making them could
have no motive to misrepresent the facts. It is
necessary that the declarant should have been
disinterested to the extent of having no motive which
can fairly be assumed to be such as would induce
him to state the facts otherwise than as he
understood it.
- Declarations made after a controversy has originated,
are excluded, on the ground that the bias under
which they were uttered suffices to render them
untrustworthy.
- Controversy as used in this provision is not meant
mere idle rumors, or doubts of curious
scandalmongers whose discussions of the family
matters of their neighbors are made without
reverence for sanctity, morality, privacy or religion.
e) The relationship between the declarant and the person
whose pedigree is in question must be shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration
- Generally, the relationship of declarant to the family
concerned must be established by evidence other
than the statement of declarant himself.
- Exception, where the subject of the declaration is the
declarant’s own relationship to another person it
seems absurd to require, as a foundation for the
admission of the declaration, proof of the very facts
which the declaration is offered to establish.
- Evidence to prove relationship may either direct or
circumstantial, such as declarant’s bearing the family
name or a name identical with that of the subject of
declaration, recognition of declarant by the family, or
mention of him in family conveyance and other
dispositions of property.
Proof concerning Pedigree
a) oral declaration of declarant
- May be proved by the testimony of any person who is
a competent witness and who has heard such
declarations of the declarant.
b) written acts or declarations of the declarant
- May be proved by the statement in writing relating to
pedigree made or recognized by the declarant, or
made under his direction.
- Exception, where the writing is in the form of an entry
in a family Bible or testament which is produced from
the proper custody, in which event the assent of the
family is presumed.
c) Acts or conduct of a person deceased or outside of the
country or unable to testify
- May consist of proof of acts or conduct of relatives
and the mode of treatment in the family of one
whose parentage or decent is in question.
74

Relationship must be legitimate
- In order to render a declaration as to pedigree admissible
it is necessary that the relationship of declarant to the
family should be of a legitimate character.
- A bastard’s declarations as to the pedigree of his putative
family, or conversely, and vice versa, are not admissible,
but in some cases the courts have shown a tendency to
relax the rule.
Subject matter of declaration of pedigree
- The facts regarded as those of genealogy or pedigree,
take a wide range, and embrace any notable fact in the life
of a member of the family or in the family history, or his
own relationship to the family.
Age
- Naturally, the testimony of a witness concerning his own
age is based upon hearsay, but according to the general
rule, this circumstances does not render such testimony
inadmissible.
- It is based on statements of his parents, records
recognized as family records, reputations in the family,
and, according to some authorities, general reputation in
the community.
- Testimony of a priest concerning the age of a person,
whom he had baptized at the time of baptism based upon
statement made at the time by a parent of such person is
not admissible where it appears that the parent is
available.
Paternity and Legitimacy
- Declarations of deceased members of a family that he was
the father or mother of a child are admissible on the
question of paternity or parentage of the child, with or
without accompanying proof of marriage.
- Declaration of deceased relatives other than the parents
are admissible as proof of paternity if made ante litem
motam (before the controversy).
- There is authority which permits declarations of persons
not related by blood may, under some circumstances, be
admissible to establish the parentage of an illegitimate.
Marriage
- Declarations and general repute are admissible as proof of
a marriage, whether or not members of the family.
- Reason: The public interest is taken in question of the
existence of a marital relation.
- Where a formal marriage is proved, repute is not
admissible to establish that there was no marriage.
Death
- The fact of death is a matter of pedigree within the rule
which permits the admission of hearsay evidence, such as
reputation in proof of matters of pedigree.
- Slight proof of relationship of the declarant is sufficient to
warrant admission of the declaration.
- A newspaper announcement of the death of an individual
is not admissible to prove the fact of such person’s death.
-
Form of Declaration
- Declaration may be in any form capable of conveying
thought, provided the authenticity of the vehicle conveying
the statement is established to the satisfaction of the court
by evidence as by recognition in the family or production
from proper custody.
- Must be a statement of fact, and not opinion.
- May be oral or in writing; the oral statement is as
competent as written evidence on the same point.
Sec. 40
Family Reputation or Tradition regarding
Pedigree.
The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous
to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any
one of its members, may be received in evidence if
the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the
family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in
family bibles or other family books or charts,
engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may
be received as evidence of pedigree.
Reputation or Tradition in matters of pedigree
- meant such declaration and statements as have come
down from generation to generation from deceased
relatives in such a way even though it cannot be said or
determined which of the deceased relatives originally
made them, or was personally cognizant of the facts
therein stated.
- It appears that such declarations and statement were
made as family history, ante litem motam (before the
controversy), by a deceased person connected by blood
or marriage with the person whose pedigree is to be
established.
Reason for Admissibility
- Family affairs are constantly talked over in the family, and
the members who know what happened tell what they
know, with spontaneous sincerity, to those who did not
know.
- Declaration as to pedigree made by deceased although
based upon hearsay within the family, and that, having
been made before any controversy had arisen, there is no
motive to speak other than the truth.
Requisites for Admissibility
a) There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any
members of a family
- Reputation in the family gives rise to an inference to
the existence of such facts as birth, descent, failure
of issue, heirship, identity, marriage, celibacy,
parentage, or relationship; or facts incidentally
connected with genealogy, such as residence or the
dates of events of family history; and evidence of
such reputations will be received on an issue of
75
 pedigree concerning any member of any branch of
the family
- Tradition in the family, being a form of family history
or reputation is admissible to prove facts of
genealogy
Age –
- Members of the family of the person in question, or
others having an intimate acquaintance with the
family, may testify as to age, although their
testimony is based on family tradition or reputation
Death –
- Evidence of reputation in the family or in the
community or family tradition, has been held
admissible to establish the fact of death, provided
there has been a considerable lapse of time.
- Hearsay evidence is inadmissible to prove the
manner or cause of death.
b) The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person,
concerned existed previous to the controversy
- Common reputation or tradition arising after the
controversy is supposed to be tainted with bias and
therefore unreliable.
c) The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition
regarding the pedigree of the person concerned must be
a member of the family of said person, either by
consanguinity or affinity.
- Relationship between the witness and the family
need not be proved by independent evidence; it
may be shown by the witness’ own testimony.
Form of Declaration Relating to Pedigree
- Any form capable of conveying thought, provided
the authenticity of the vehicle conveying the statement is
established to the satisfaction of the court by evidence as
by recognition in the family or production from proper
custody.
Sec. 41
Common reputation
Common reputation existing previous to the
controversy, respecting facts of public or general
interest more than thirty years old, or respecting
marriage or moral character, may be given in
evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in public
places may be received as evidence of common
reputation.
Matters of public interest vs. matters of general interest
- Matters of public interest are common to all the citizens of
the state or to the entire people,
- matters of general interest are common only to a single
community or to a considerable number of persons
forming part of the community.
Matters which may be established by common reputation
a) Facts of public or general interest more than 30 years
old;
b) Marriage and related facts; and
c) Individual moral character.
Common Reputation Respecting Facts of Public or General
Interest more than Thirty Years Old
- Reputation must have been formed among a class of
people of persons who were in a position to have sound
sources of information and to contribute intelligently to the
formation of the opinion.
Common Reputation vs. Rumor
- Rumor is a story current without known authority for its
truth, and, therefore, by its nature, does not yet represent
the prevailing belief in the community
- Common Reputation presupposes the existence of a
general or undivided belief already formed on which the
general opinion is founded.
Common Reputation Respecting Marriage
a) The common reputation must have been formed previous
to the controversy.
b) The common reputation must have been formed in the
community or among the class of persons who are in a
position to have sources of information and to contribute
intelligently to the formation of the opinion.
Sec. 42
Part of res gestae
Statements made by a person while a starting
occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res
gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a
legal significance, may be received as part of the res
gestae.
Res Gestae Defined
- Comprehends a situation which presents a startling or
unusual occurrence sufficient to produce a spontaneous
and instinctive reaction, during which interval, certain
statements are made under such circumstance as to show
lack of forethought or deliberate design in the formulation
of their contents.
Res Gestae vs. Dying Declaration
- In dying declaration there is a sense of impending death
which takes the place of an oath and the law regards the
declarant as testifying .
- While in res gestae it is the event itself which speaks, the
actual facts expressing themselves through the mouth of a
76
 witness, which may precede, or accompany, or follow, as
events occurring as a part of the principal act.
Reason of Admissibility
- It is a well-founded belief that statements made
instinctively at the time of a specific transaction or events,
without opportunity for formulation of statements favorable
to one’s own cause, are likely to cast important light upon
the matter in issue; as to such statements, the law creates
a presumption of their truthfulness.
Test of Admissibility
- Whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so
intimately interwoven or connected with the principal factor
event which it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of
the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives
any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.
Statements and Acts Constituting Part of Res Gestae
a) Statement made by a person while a startling occurrence
is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto
with respect to the circumstances thereof.
b) Acts and circumstances which are incidents of a
particular litigated act and which are illustrative of such
act;
c) Statement accompanying an equivocal act material to the
issue, and giving it a legal significance, and are called by
writers as “verbal facts” or “verbal acts”
Examples:
- Declaration of the parties made with regard to matters of
business, if contemporaneous with the acts they tend to
explain and qualify, are admissible
- Declarations by a party relating to ownership of property
made by a person in possession thereof, may be admitted
when uttered under such circumstances as satisfy the
requirements applicable to other statements sought to be
admitted under this exception to hearsay rule.
- Declaration made at the time of a transaction which are
pertinent to the question of fraud are generally viewed as
admissible.
- Statements made by an injured person relating to present
pain and suffering or at the time of an accident or so
shortly thereafter as to form part of one event or
transaction are viewed in some decisions as part of the
res gestae.
Spontaneous Statement Defined
- A statement or exclamation made immediately after some
exciting occasion by a participant or spectator and
asserting the circumstances of that occasion as it is
observed by him.
Reason for Admissibility
a) Trustworthiness – the statements are made
instinctively, while the declarant’s mental powers
for deliberation in concocting matters are
controlled and stilled by the shocking influence of
a startling occurrence, they are but pure
emanation of the occurrence itself.
b) Necessity – said natural and spontaneous
utterances are more convincing than the testimony
of the same person on the stand.
Elements of the statement or declaration to be admissible as
part of res gestae – Corpus Juris Secumdum
a) must relate to the main event and must explain,
elucidate, or in some manner characterize that event
b) must be a natural declaration or statement growing out of
the event, and not a mere narrative of a past, completed
affair
c) must be a statement of fact, and not the mere expression
of an opinion
d) must be a spontaneous or instinctive utterance of
thought, dominated or evoked by the transaction or
occurrence itself, and not the product of premeditation,
reflection, or design
e) the declaration or statement need not be coincident or
contemporaneous with the occurrence of the event, it
must be made at such time and under such
circumstances as will exclude the presumption that it is
the result of deliberation
f) must appear that the declaration or statement was made
by one who either participated in the transaction or
witnessed the act or fact concerning which the
declaration or statement was made.
Startling Occurrence Necessary
- it is essential that the spontaneous exclamation should
have been caused by something “ startling enough to
produce nervous excitement” and “to keep the will
dormant so far as any deliberation in concocting matters
for speech or selecting words is concerned.
Statement must relate to the circumstances of the startling
occurrence
- the range of events must be kept in view for it is largely
the explanatory and illustrative character of the declaration
as applied to the principal transaction that admits them as
evidence.
Interval of time between the startling occurrence and the
spontaneous statement
- Since startling occurrence may extend its exciting
influence over a subsequent period of time which may be
long or short, the rule is that the statements, to be
admissible, should have been made before there had
been time or opportunity to devise or contrive anything
contrary to the real facts that occurred.
- What the law altogether distrusts is not the afterspeech
but the afterthought.
When expression of opinion admissible as part of the res
gestae
- When a spontaneous exclamation of an injured person
that it involves the expression of an opinion as to the legal
or physical effects of his injury, and it has also been held
that the opinions or conclusions of competent physicians,
stated while examining a patient, may be admissible as
part of the res gestae.
77
Place Where the Statement was made
- It is not unreasonable to suppose that a statement made,
or an act done, at a place some distance from the place
where the principal transaction occurred will not ordinarily
possess such spontaneity as would render it admissible.
Condition of the Declarant at the Time he made the
Declaration
- A statement will ordinarily be deemed spontaneous if, at
the time when it was made, the condition of declarant was
such as to raise an inference that the effect of the
occurrence on his mind still continued, as where he had
just received a serious injury, was suffering severe pain, or
was just under intense excitement.
Province of the Court to Determine Whether or not Statement
is Spontaneous
- It is for the trial court to decide the preliminary question as
to whether or not the declarations were made without
deliberation and reflection or were the spontaneous
utterance of the declarant
- Trial court’s decision of above mention question will not be
disturbed on appeal unless it appears that his conclusion
was arbitrary or unreasonable
Declarations of Bystanders and Third Persons
- If the act of a third party is relevant and is in evidence, his
statement accompanying and explanatory of it, which is
the natural concomitant of the act, and is prompted by the
identical motive should be admitted.
- But if the declarations of a third persons are merely
narrative and unconnected with the relevant act, so that by
no proper extension of the rule can they be included
among the res gestae.
Acts and Circumstances which are Incidents of a Particular
Litigated Act
- Statements, acts or conduct accompanying or so nearly
connected with the main transaction as to form a part of it,
and which illustrate, elucidate, qualify, or characterize the
act, are admissible as part of res gestae.
- Writings may become part of the resgestae and
admissible in evidence where they are incidents of a
transaction and a part thereof.
Verbal Acts Defined
- Are utterances which accompany some acts has
intrinsically no definite legal significance, or only an
ambiguous one, its legal purport or tenor may be
ascertained by considering the words accompanying it,
and these utterances thus enter merely as a verbal part of
the act.
Reason for Admissibility
- The motive, character, and object of an act are
frequently indicated by what was said by the person
engaged in the act, such statement are in the
nature of verbal acts and are admissible in
evidence with the remainder of the transaction
which they illustrate.
Requisites for Admissibility
a) The act characterized by the verbal acts must be
equivocal or ambiguous in tenor;
b) That the verbal acts must characterize or explain
the equivocal or ambiguous act;
c) That the equivocal or ambiguous act must be
material to the issue; and
d) That the verbal act must be contemporaneous with
and accompany the equivocal or ambiguous act
Verbal Acts vs. Spontaneous Statements
- In spontaneous exclamations, the res gestae is the
startling occurrence; while in verbal acts, the res gestae is
the equivocal act.
- The verbal act must be contemporaneous with or must
accompany the equivocal act to be admissible; whereas a
spontaneous exclamation may be prior to, simultaneous
with, or subsequent to the startling.
Act or Occurrence Characterized must be Equivocal
- It is only when the thing done is equivocal that it is
competent to prove declarations accompanying it as falling
within the class of res gestae.
Verbal Acts must Characterize or Explain the Equivocal Act
- The statement that are admissible are only those
necessary to understand the meaning of the equivocal act,
other statements not necessary for that purpose are not
admissible.
Equivocal Act Must be Relevant to the Issue
- The general rule is that a declaration sought to be proved
under the res gestae must have been contemporaneous
with the event established as the principal act; it must
spring at a time so near it as to preclude the idea of
deliberate design, they may be regarded as
contemporaneous and are admissible in evidence.
Equivocal Act may Cover a Long Period of Time
- The equivocal act may extend over a long period of time,
and during that period, those statements that are
necessary for an understanding of the meaning of said
equivocal act, are admissible as verbal acts.
Sec. 43
Entries in the course of business
Entries made at, or near the time of transactions to
which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable to
testify, who was in a position to know the facts therein
stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if
such person made the entries in his professional
capacity or in the performance of duty and in the
ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
General Rule
- Books of account of a party or entries therein, are
admissible in his favor to show the recorded transactions
when a proper foundation is laid and the requisites to
admissibility have been met.
Reason for Admissibility
a) Necessity – is given as a ground for admitting entries in
that they are the best available evidence
78
 b) Trustworthiness
Requisites for Admissibility
a) Entries must have been made at or near the time of the
transaction to which they refer
- It is sufficient if they are made within a reasonable
time thereafter, in the ordinary course of the
business of the party making them
b) Entrant must have been in a position to know the facts
stated in the entries
- If the entry is based on reports, oral or written,
numerous persons cooperating, who had personal
knowledge of their own items but did not
themselves make the entries, the entries may be
received, either by calling the entrant alone to the
stand or by the testimony of one who can verify the
method of compiling them.
c) Entries must have been made by entrant in his
professional capacity or in the performance of his duty
- To constitute a profession, the employment or
vocation must be such as exacts the use or
application of special learning or attainment of
some kind.
- Where the entry was made in the a professional
capacity and in the course of professional conduct,
or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty, there are three
guarantees of their trustworthiness.
i. Habit and system of making record with
regularity result in accuracy;
ii. Errors may easily be detected because the
entries are made in the regular course of
professional conduct, performance of duty,
or the ordinary and regular duties of the
person making the entries; and
iii. If the entries are made in pursuance of his
duty, legal or to a superior, the additional risk
of censure and disgrace to the entrant
makes them presumably correct.
d) Entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of
business or duty
- Hence, such entries made constitute only one of a
variety of circumstances, sanctioned by judiciary
practice, acceptable as presumptive evidence of
the accuracy and truthfulness of the entry and as a
practical substitute for the conventional test of
cross-examination.
e) Entrant must be deceased or unable to testify
- In order to qualify an entry, there must be a
necessity for its admission as evidence and this is
satisfied by proof of the death of the entrant.
- When declarant is alive, entries may be used as
memorandum to refresh his memory as witness.
Mode of Proving Entries
- It is required that the entries be properly identified or
authenticated, and generally, their completeness, and
correctness, regularly, and fairly as well as the method of
making them, must be established
Sec. 44
Entries in official records
Entries in official records made in the performance of
his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a
person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined
by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated.
General Rule
- The division of documentary evidence embracing public
or official records and reports includes acts of the
legislature, judicial records, and records and reports of
administrative officers.
- Any such record or document or a properly authenticated
copy or transcript thereof is admissible in the trial of an
action, subject to the same requirements of relevancy
and materiality as apply to private writings.
Reason for Admissibility
a) Necessity – consists in the practical impossibility of
requiring the official’s attendance as a witness to testify
to the innumerable transactions occurring in the course of
his duty and requiring to be evidence.
b) Trustworthiness –
i. in the sense of official duty which has led to the
making of the statement;
ii. in the penalty which usually is affixed to a breach of
that duty;
iii. in the routine and disinterested origin of most of
such statements; and
iv. I the publicity of record, which makes more likely
the prior exposure of such errors as might have
occurred
Requisites for Admissibility
a) That the written statement was made by public officer or
by another person specially enjoined by law to do so;
b) That it was made by the public officer in the performance
of a duty specially enjoined by law; and
c) That the public officer or the other person had sufficient
knowledge of the facts by him state, which must have
been acquired by him personally or through official
information
Public Officer
- It is not necessary that the record, should be kept by the
chief public officer himself, it is sufficient if the entries are
made under his direction by person authorized by him.
Performance of Duty by Public Officer
- It is essential that the official statement should have been
made by a public officer in the performance of his duty, or
by another person in the performance of his duty, specially
enjoined by law.
Unavailability of Entrant Need not be Shown
79
 - His absence is being excused from appearing in court in
order that public business be not deranged.
Proof of Official Entries
- Entries may be proved by the production of the books or
records themselves or by a copy certified by the legal
keeper thereof.
Authentication
- The extraordinary degree of confidence reposed in
documents of a public nature is founded principally upon
the circumstance that they have been made by authorized
and accredited agents appointed for the purpose.
Probative value
- Entries in public records made by a public officer in the
performance of the duty specially enjoined by law are only
prima facie evidence of the fact therein stated, and their
probative value may be either substantiated or nullified by
other competent evidence.
SECTION 45, RULE 130
Commercial lists and the like.-- Evidence of statements of
matters of interest, to persons engaged in an occupation
contained in a list, register, periodical, or other published
compilation is admissible as tending to prove the truth of any
relevant matter so stated if that compilation is published for use
by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used
and relied upon by them therein.
Reason for Admissibility
The admissibility of commercial lists and the like as evidence
even though the authors, compilers or publishers thereof
cannot be cross-examined as witness is based on necessity
and trustworthiness; necessary to because of the
inaccessibility of the authors, computers, or publisher in other
jurisdiction but also because the great practical inconvenience
in summoning each individual whose personal knowledge has
gone to make up the final result.
Market reports or quotations, trade journals, trade
circulars, price lists and the like
Admissible as evidence; Such reports, being based upon a
general survey of the whole market and constantly received
and acted upon by dealers, are far more satisfactory and
reliable than individual entries or individual sales or inquiries.
Authentication
As a prerequisite to the introduction in evidence of a
newspaper, trade journal, trade circular, or price list, giving the
quotations of the market value of a commodity, that a
preliminary foundation be laid for such evidence, as by
showing that such publications have been regularly prepared
by a person in touch with the market, and that they are
generally regarded as trustworthy and relied upon.
SECTION 46, RULE 130
Learned treaties.-- 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.
Learned treaties are admissible in evidence to prove the truth
of a matter stated therein, (a) if the court takes judicial notice
that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical, or
pamphlet, is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in
the subject, (b) o 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.
Reason for admissibility
Necessity and Trustworthiness. Necessity because of the
unavailability of the expert witness to testify on the matter or if
available, because of the tremendous expense in hiring them.
Trustworthiness because the learned witness in writing his
work or article has no motive to misrepresent . Another reason
is that the writer of a learned treatise is more careful of what he
writes because he knows that every statement he makes will
be subject to criticism and open to refutation. Still another
reason is that writers of learned treatise with no view to
litigation and not for a free as expert witness.
Historical Works
Historical facts of general and public notoriety may be proved
by reputation; and that reputation may be established by
historical works of known character and accuracy. But
evidence of this sort is confined in a measure to ancient facts,
the assumption being that better evidence is not in existence.
Scientific Treatise
Much of the scientific knowledge of experts in medicine,
surgery, mechanics, chemistry, and other fields of specialized
learning is derived from scientific books and treatises; their
knowledge would, in general, be small had they got availed
themselves of the fruits of the research and experience of their
predecessors as taught in books. This opinion of expert
witnesses must be founded in some degree upon such books;
in fact, they may, as a general rule, in support of their
professional opinions, read in evidence from standard scientific
works which are recognized as such by the profession in which
they are engaged.
General exception: When they contain statements of
ascertained facts rather than of opinions, or which, by long use
in the practical affairs of life, have come to be accepted as
standard and unvarying authority in determining the action of
those who use them.
Law
When the law involved in a controversy is a domestic law, the
court is bound to take judicial notice thereof, and no proof is
necessary whatever. Foreign law, a distinction as to proof is
laid down between written and unwritten law. Written law may
be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy
attested to by the officer having legal custody of the record, or
by his deputy, and must be accompanied with a certificate that
such officer has the custody.In Unwritten law, the oral
testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, as are printed and
published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the
country concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in such
courts.
80
Under our rules of private international law, foreign law is
considered as any other matter of fact, which must be properly
pleaded and proved. If not properly proved, the presumption
arises that foreign law is the same as domestic law.
Philippine Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign law.
Failure to prove foreign law whether unwritten under rule 130,
sec. 46 or written under rule 132, sec. 24, raises the
presumption that the law is the same as ours. (Yao kee v. Sy
Gonzales, 167 SCRA 736)
SECTION 47, RULE 130
Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.-- The
testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to
testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter,
may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had
the opportunity to cross-examine him.
Generally, the mere fact that testimony has been given in the
course of a former proceeding between the parties to a case
on trial is no ground for its admission in evidence. The law
recognizes, however, that it is sometimes impossible to
produce a witness who has testified at a former trial, as where
he dies or become insane before the later trial. In such cases,
where the second action is between the same parties or their
privies and involves the same issues, the testimony of the
witness as taken at the former hearing or trial is, according to
practically all decisions, admissible in later one as one of the
exceptions to the rule excluding hearsay testimony.
“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 v. CA,
1967)
Reason for admissibility
Necessity for the testimony and its Trustworthiness. Inasmuch
as the former witness could no longer testify, his former
testimony having been given in a former action under the
solemnity of an oath is admissible to prevent failure of justice.
Requisites
a. The witness whose testimony is offered in evidence is
dead or unable to testify
1. Insanity or mental incapacity, or the former
witness’ loss of memory through old age or
disease;
2. Physical disability by reason of sickness or
advanced age;
3. The fact that the witness has been kept away by
contrivance of the opposite party; and
4. The fact that after diligent search the former
witness cannot be found.
b. Identity of parties
c. Identity of issues
d. Opportunity of cross-examination of witness
Proof of former testimony
If testimony at a former trial is reduced to writing, such writing
is the primary evidence thereof and should be used. E.g.
stenographic note
SECTION 48, RULE 140
General rule.—The opinion of a witness is not admissible,
except as indicated in the following sections.
Opinion defined
An inference or conclusion drawn by a witness from facts,
some of which are known to him and others assumed, or
drawn from facts, which although leading probability to the
inference, do not evolve it by a process of absolutely
necessary reasoning.
Rule of exclusion
Under ordinary circumstances a witness in testifying is to be
restricted to the facts within his knowledge, and his opinion or
conclusion with respect to the matters in issue or relevant to
the issue may not be received in evidence. However, when the
conclusion to be drawn from the facts stated depends on
scientific knowledge or skill, not within the range of ordinary
training or intelligence, the conclusion may be stated by
qualified expert.
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 witness as an expert. Knowledge acquired by doing is no
less valuable than that acquired by study. (Dilag Co. v.
Merced, 1949)
Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive in the
sense that they must be accepted as true on the subjrct 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.
Testimony of handwriting expert is not indispensible
to COMELEC. Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are
not indispensible in examining or comparing handwriting; this
can be done by the COMELEC itself. It was ruled by the SC
that evidence aliunde is not allowed to prove that a ballot is
marked, an inspection of the ballot itself being sufficient.
(Punzalan v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 126669)
Sec. 49, Rule 130
I. IN GENERAL
* Opinion evidence defined. – “Opinion evidence,” as the
term is used in law, means the testimony of a witness, given in
the trial of an action, that the witness is of the opinion that
some facts pertinent to the case exist or does not exist, offered
as proof of the existence or non-existence of that fact.
* Expert evidence defined. – Expert evidence is the testimony
of persons who are particularly skilled, or experienced in a
particular art, science, trade, business, profession, or vocation,
a thorough knowledge of which is not possessed by man in
general, in regard to matters connected therewith.
81
* “Expert” defined. – An expert may be defined as a person
who is so qualified, either by actual experience or by careful
study, as to enable him to form a definite opinion of his own
respecting any decision of science, branch of art, or
department of trade about which persons having no particular
training or special study are incapable of forming accurate
opinions or of deducing correct conclusions.
* Expert witness distinguished from skilled witness. --
Ordinarily, a witness is said to testify as an expert when a state
of facts, observed by someone else, is hypothetically submitted
to the witness, and he is asked in view of those facts, to state
what his opinion is, whereas a man skilled in a particular
business, who makes his own observations, and testifies to
what he has observed and his conclusions therefrom, is
regarded as a skilled witness.
* Classes of cases in which opinion evidence is
admissible. -- There are two distinct classes of cases in which
expert testimony is admissible.
1) In one class are those cases in which conclusions
to be drawn by the judge depend on the existence of
facts which are not common knowledge and which
are peculiarly within the knowledge of men whose
experience or study enables them to speak with
authority upon the subjects in question.
2) In the other class are those cases, in which the
conclusions to be drawn from the facts stated, as well
as knowledge of the facts themselves, depend on
professional or scientific knowledge not within the
range of ordinary training or intelligence.
* Qualifications of experts. – A witness, to qualify as an
expert, must have acquired such special knowledge of the
subject-matter about which he is to testify, either by study of
the recognized authorities on the subject, or by practical
experience, that he can give the court assistance and guidance
in solving a problem to which its equipment of good judgment
and average knowledge is inadequate.
* Determination of qualification of expert to testify. – The
question of the qualification of an expert witness rests largely
in the discretion of the trial court, and the test of qualification is
necessarily a relative one, depending upon the subject under
investigation and the fitness of the particular witness.
* Requisites for the admissibility of expert testimony. --
Three things must concur to justify the admission of the
testimony of an expert witness.
First, the subject under examination must be one
that requires that the court has the aid of knowledge
or experience such as men not especially skilled do
not have, and such therefore as cannot be obtained
from the ordinary witnesses.
Second, the witness called as an expert must
possess the knowledge, skill, or experience needed to
inform the court in the particular case under
consideration.
Third, like other evidence, expert testimony is not
admissible as to a matter not in issue.
II. EXAMINATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES
* Generally. – Before an expert witness may be required to
give an opinion, the party presenting him must first establish
that he is an expert on the subject upon which he is called to
testify.
* Direct examination.
(a) Opinion based on facts known personally by the
expert. - Where the expert witness is required to give
an opinion based upon facts upon which he knows
personally, he must first state those facts before
giving an opinion thereon.
(b) Opinion based on facts of which he has no
personal knowledge. – If the expert has no personal
knowledge of the facts on which his opinion is based,
they should be given to him hypothetically, that is,
they must assume the state of facts upon which his
opinion is desired.
* Hypothetical question. – Hypothetical questions must
include only facts that are supported by evidence and should
embody substantially all facts relating to the particular matter
upon which an expert opinion is sought to be elicited, but they
need not include all facts pertinent to the ultimate issue.
* Form of hypothetical question. – Generally speaking a
hypothetical question should state all the facts relevant to the
formation of an opinion, and then, assuming the facts stated to
be true, ask the witness whether he is able to form an opinion
therefrom, and, if so, to state such opinion.
Hypothetical question involves two distinct elements, namely,
premise and inference or conclusion based on premise.
* When abstract questions permissible. – Purely abstract
questions, assuming facts or theories for which there is no
foundation in the evidence, are not admissible as a matter of
right, although such questions may be permitted on cross-
examination for the purpose of testing the knowledge of the
witness as to the subject on which he has testified.
* Opinion of expert based on hearsay inadmissible. – The
rule is well established that hearsay in the form of information
gained from the statements of others outside the courtroom
may not be the basis of an expert opinion.
* Opinion of expert cannot be based on other opinions. – It
is not proper in asking hypothetical questions to incorporate in
them the opinions of other expert witnesses. An opinion of an
82
expert witness cannot be based upon opinions expressed by
other experts.
* Opinion based on conjecture inadmissible. – Expert
testimony should not be allowed to extend to the field of
baseless conjecture concerning matters not susceptible of
reasonable accurate conclusions.
* Opinion involving questions of law inadmissible. – It may
be laid down as a general rule that a witness is never permitted
to give his opinion on a question of domestic law or upon
matters, which involve questions of law.
* Opinion on the ultimate fact in issue inadmissible. –While
an expert may be permitted to express his opinion, or even his
belief, he cannot give his opinion upon the precise or ultimate
fact in issue before the court, which must be determined by it.
* Impeachment of expert witness. – The weight to be given
the judgment of a skilled witness may be impaired by the
various methods employed in the case of other testimony. He
may be contradicted by others in his own class or by any
competent witness or by use of exhibits; or the weight of his
testimony may be impaired by showing that he is interested or
biased; that others have at a prior time refused to accept the
opinion expressed; that he made inconsistent statements at
another time, provided a proper foundation is laid therefore;
that he formed a different opinion at another time; that he did
not express the opinion testified to at a time when such an
expression might reasonably have been expected, or that he
changed sides in the case.
* Courts not bound by testimony of expert. – 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 in character; the
courts may place whatever weight they choose upon such
testimony and may reject it, if they find that it is consistent with
the facts in the case or otherwise unreasonable.
2009 JURISPRUDENCE
G.R. No. 150897. April 11, 2005
TURADIO C. DOMINGO, Petitioners,
vs.
JOSE C. DOMINGO, LEONORA DOMINGO-CASTRO and her
spouse JUANITO CASTRO, NUNCIA DOMINGO-BALABIS,
ABELLA DOMINGO VALENCERINA and the REGISTER OF
DEEDS, QUEZON CITY, Respondents.
FACTS:
F (father) sold his property to his children A, B, C, and D
(excluding E, the eldest) due to failing health. Indeed, a deed
of absolute sale was signed by the former conveying the said
property and was witnessed by two persons and notarized by a
notary public.
E learned of such sale when an ejectment suit was filed
against him. Upon the advice of his counsel, he had the
documents examined by the PNP. As a result, the PNP came
up with the conclusion that the signatures were written by two
different people.
Hence, E assailed the contract for being a forgery.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the court is bound to give evidentiary
value of the opinion of the PNP.
RULING:
Under the Rules of Court, the following may prove the
genuineness of handwriting:
(1) A witness who actually saw the person writing the
instrument;
(2) A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give
his opinion thereon, such opinion being an exception to the
opinion rule;
(3) A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting
and admitted genuine specimen thereof; and
(4) Expert evidence. (Sec. 49 Rule 130) - The law makes
no preference, much less distinction among and between the
different means stated above in proving the handwriting of a
person. It is likewise clear from the foregoing that courts are
not bound to give probative value or evidentiary value to the
opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to handwriting
experts is not mandatory.
* Weight of expert testimony. – Under the usual
circumstances expert opinion evidence is to be considered or
weighed by the court like other testimony, in the light of their
own general knowledge and experience in the subject of
inquiry; the court cannot arbitrarily disregard the testimony of
experts or skilled witnesses, and make an unsupported finding
contrary to the opinion.
III. SUBJECTS OF EXPERT TESTIMONY
* Generally. – The most common subjects of expert testimony
are handwriting, including typewritten documents, ballistic,
mental condition, cause of death or injury and value of real
property including market value.
A. HANDWRITING
* Handwriting expert. – There is no test by which one can
determine with precision how much experience or knowledge
of handwriting a witness must have in order to qualify as an
expert for comparison.
It is not essential to qualify one as an expert to testify to
comparisons of handwritings that he has professional
knowledge or that he has made such work a specialty. It is
enough that he has been engaged in some business which
83
called for frequent comparisons of handwritings and that he
has in fact been in the habit for a length of time of making such
comparisons.
*Function of handwriting expert. – No handwriting expert
should wish for his testimony to be received as unquestionable
authority, the idea being rather that it is the function of the
expert to place before the court data upon which the court can
form its own opinion.
An expert on handwriting may give not only an
opinion upon the authenticity of writing, but also, in his
examination in chief, the reasons for his opinion.
* Court may order examination of questioned document by
National Bureau of Investigation. – When a party is too poor
to pay the fees of a handwriting expert, the court, upon its own
initiative, may, for the sake of justice, require the National
Bureau of Investigation to make an examination of the
signature in a questioned document.
* Two problems in handwriting identification. – There are
two main problems in handwriting identification.
1) To determine whether a signature, a line of writing,
or a page or more of writing was written by the one
who is alleged to have written it.
2) Determining whether a certain writer wrote an anonymous or
other writing.
Both of these handwriting problems must be solved by a study
of the inherent qualities in the writings themselves and by a
comparison of their elements, qualities, and characteristics
with other writing.
* General appearance or pictorial effect. – The first test
applied to a disputed writing by nearly every examiner is the
test of general appearance or pictorial effect as compared with
the genuine standard of writing.
* Method of testing genuineness of disputed handwriting
by comparison. – One of the first steps in the investigation of
a suspected or disputed writing should be the seeking out of
suitable genuine handwriting with which it is to be compared.
The qualities and characteristics of any handwriting as
determined and classified in a thorough examination are;
1) Permanent and fixed
2) Usual or common
3) Occasional and,
4) Exceptional or accidental
It therefore follows that handwriting has a certain field of
possible and expected variation and without a sufficient
quantity of standard writing significant habits cannot be
determined, and the value and force of characteristics cannot
be definitely known.
* Proof of genuineness of standard handwriting. –
Generally, where writings are admitted to serve as a basis for
comparison, the genuineness thereof must be proved to the
satisfaction of the judge as a preliminary question. His decision
on such preliminary question is conclusive, unless it appears to
have been based on some erroneous view of law, or was
clearly not justified by state of the evidence at that time.
* Use of writings other than those in issue. – There is a
direct conflict of authority on the question of whether an expert
handwriting witness may be tested as to the accuracy of his
knowledge by the use of writings others than those in issue.
The majority rule is that submitting to him may not test such a
witness, and eliciting his opinion as to the genuineness of other
writings not admitted or proved to be genuine. But in at least
two jurisdictions it has been held that writings neither admitted
nor proved to be genuine, and even though otherwise
irrelevant, may be used to test an expert handwriting witness.
* Characteristics of handwriting; general principles.
No set of infallible rules can be formulated but some general
principles can be stated that apply in most cases.
1) Identifying or differentiating characteristics. – One of the
principles by which the force and significance of characteristics
are measured is that those identifying or differentiating
characteristics are of the most force which are most divergent
from the regular system or national features of a particular
handwriting under examination.
2) Inconspicuous characteristics. – Repeated characteristics
which are inconspicuous should first be sought and should be
given the most weight, for these are likely to be so
unconscious that they would not intentionally be omitted when
an attempt is made to disguise, and would not be successfully
copied from the writing of another when simulation is
attempted.
3) General characteristics or national features and elements
are not alone sufficient on which to have a judgment of identity
of two writings, although these characteristics necessarily have
as evidence of identity, as stated above, if present in sufficient
number and in combination with individual qualities and
characteristics.
* Exact coincidence between two signatures. – It is a first
principle in writing that exact coincidence between two
signatures is absolute proof that one or the other is a forgery.
There must be some difference before authentically can be
admitted; and the general rule is that authenticity reposes upon
a general characteristics resemblance, coupled with specific
differences, such as naturally result from the infinite variety of
conditions controlling the muscles of the writer at each
separate effort in forming his signature.
84
* Test for determining identity or non-identity. – In order to
reach the conclusion that two writings are by the same hand
there must not only be present general characteristics but also
individual characteristics or ‘dents and scratches,’ in sufficient
quantity to exclude the theory of accidental coincidence; to
reach the conclusion that writings are by different hands we
may find numerous likenesses in general characteristics but
divergence in individual characteristics, or we may find
divergences in both, but the divergence must be something
more than mere superficial differences.
* A favorite defense of forgery. – One of the favorite
defenses of forgery is the argument that the numerous
damaging divergences in a disputed signature, which in
combination are highly significant as evidence that it is not
genuine, can each be found separately in one signature out of
a great number of signatures, and that this proves that the
disputed signature is genuine. Even if they could be found, this
would not be proof of genuineness. The incompetent or the
insincere witness, or the advocate, who is defending forgery,
will often laboriously seek out these separated and only
partially exemplified qualities, and then argue that the disputed
signature and the genuine writing are just alike.
* Circumstances that may induce expert to give erroneous
opinion. – Identity is proved when two handwritings both
contain a sufficient number of significant characteristics;
qualities and elements so that it is unreasonable to say that
they would all accidentally coincide in two different
handwritings.
* Errors are due to:
(1) Basing opinion on inadequate amount of disputed writings
(2) Inadequate amount of standard writing
(3) Basing conclusion on common qualities alone
(4) Basing conclusion on system or national characteristics
(5) Basing conclusion partly on outside facts or statements of
interested party
(6) Ignoring difference in the writings
(7) Interpreting all differences as disguises
(8) Allowing prejudice, sympathy or antipathy to affect a
conclusion
(9) Haste or superficial examination
(10) Inability to weigh and interpret characteristics or qualities
(11) Basing opinion on undeveloped writing from school
teachers or pupils or young writers
(12) The attempt to identify the actual writer of a forged
signature that is a simulated or traced writing
* Osborn’s suggestion in presenting expert testimony. –
There are certain preliminary details in connection with the
presentation of testimony of a technical character that deserve
some attention. Before an expert or opinion witness is allowed
to testify the law requires that he be “qualified” in a legal way to
give expert testimony. This qualifying process consists in
showing that the witness has had such preparation and
experience as to legally qualify him to give an opinion in court
on the subject in dispute.
B. TYPEWRITTEN DOCUMENTS
* Identification of typewritten documents. – The principles
applicable to handwriting apply equally to typewritten
documents.
Expert testimony identifying typewriting, printing and other
mechanical impressions as prepared on a particular machine is
now considered an integral part of the science of questioned
documents. Two types of experts appear in this field, the
examiner of documents and the typewriter mechanic or
engineer. Qualifications are the same for both, that is anyone
may testify, as an expert whose training and experience have
developed knowledge above that of the average person in the
features of a typewriter or printing press, subject to the sound
discretion of the court.
* Typewriting questions. – Typewriting questions are
presented in a great variety of ways. In the first place, if often is
desirable simply to ascertain the date of a typewritten
document. It may also be a matter of great importance to learn
whether a document was all written continuously or written at
different times on the same machine or at different times on
different machines.
* Skilled typist. – Skilled typist may be permitted to state
inference that two pages of minute book of corporation were
written by different typists using different machines.
* Identification of operator. – The question of identification of
the typewriter operator is primarily predicated upon the
physical arrangement, the manner of punctuation, the length of
line, the depth of indentation, and the method of spelling,
although some authorities discuss the question from the point
of view that operators of typewriters have different touches.
* Habits of operator. – Different habits of touch, spacing,
speed, arrangement, punctuation, or incorrect use of any
letters, figures, or other characters may also show that a
document was not all written by one operator, or may show
that a collection of documents was produced by several
different operators.
* Typewriting characteristics.
The first fact to be considered in investigating the date of a
typewriting is to find when a certain kind of machine, the work
of which is in question, first came into use, and then it is
important to learn, and to be able to prove, when any changes
in the machine were made that affected the written record.
* The most important typewriting inquiry. – Perhaps the
most important typewriting inquiry is the determination whether
a typewritten document is the work of a particular individual
machine. There usually are two steps in an inquiry of this kind;
1) The first being the determination of the fact that the
document was written on a certain particular kind
of machine,
85
 2) And the second that it was written on a certain
individual machine of that particular kind
* Comparison of typewriting or printing. – The authorities
dealing with the question whether typewritten instruments can
be identified as to genuineness by the peculiarity of the writing
in much the same manner as handwriting has been identified
appear to agree that typewriting possesses such individuality
that it can be identified in much the same manner as
handwriting, by comparison with other typewriting and by
expert testimony. The theory underlying this rule is that where
an impression is made on paper y an instrument, which
possesses a defect or peculiarity, the identity of the instrument
may be proved by the similarity of the defects, which it
impresses on different papers.
C. FINGERPRINTS
* Fingerprints, palm prints, footprints, tracks. –
Authenticated fingerprints, palm prints or footprints or
photographs thereof of any person may be introduced in
evidence and compared with other fingerprints, palm prints or
footprints found at or near the scene of the crime. This
comparison is usually made by experts who may be permitted
to use projectoscopes and photographic enlargements for the
purpose of displaying such photographic impression to the
court.
* Fingerprint experts. – He must have knowledge of
fingerprint from study, training, or experience as to make him a
specialist in the subject.
* Admissibility of fingerprints expert testimony. – Expert
testimony as to the identity of thumbmarks or fingerprints is
admissible. However, the court is justified in refusing to accept
opinions of alleged experts where thumb impressions are
blurred and many of the characteristic marks far from clear,
thus rendering it difficult to trace the features enumerated by
experts as showing the identity or lack of identity of the
impressions. The court may substitute the opinion of experts
by its own opinion that a distinct similarity in some respects
between the admittedly genuine thumbmark and the
questioned thumbmarks is evident.
* Weight of fingerprint. – The weight to be given evidence of
correspondence of fingerprints, where offered to prove identity
of the accused as the person committing the crime, is for the
determination of the court in the light of all surrounding facts
and circumstances. To warrant a conviction, however, the
fingerprints corresponding to those of the accused must have
been found in the place where the crime was committed, under
such circumstances that they could only have been impressed
at the time when the crime was committed. When it appears
that there were fingerprints other than those identified as the
defendant’s who are neither identified nor explained, the proof
of the defendant’s prints is not sufficient to support a
conviction.
D. BALLISTICS
* Ballistics expert. – He is one who is qualified to give expert
opinion on firearms and ammunition. No witness should be
permitted to testify regarding the identification of firearms and
bullets by the use of this science unless he has clearly shown
that he is qualified to give such testimony. In a trial, it is
necessary that the instrument, such as a weapon involved in a
crime, be tested and demonstrated.
* The problem of determining whether or not a given bullet
was fired from a suspected firearm. – This problem can be
solved only if it is possible to establish: (a) that the signature
on the given bullet was engraved by a firearm with the same
class characteristics as those if the suspected firearm; (b) that
the same combination of identifying elements exists in the
signature on all bullets (except those undersize) fired from the
suspected firearms at the time, and all variations found in
these signatures can be reconciled; (c) that the same
combination of identifying elements exists in the signature on
the given bullet; (d) that all variations existing in the signature
on the given bullet and the signatures of the suspected firearm
can be reconciled; and (e) that the identifying elements
determined from a combination the coexistence of which is
highly improbable in the signatures of other firearms with the
same class characteristics.
* The problem of determining whether or not a fired
cartridge case was fired in a suspected firearm. – The first
step in the solution of this problem is to compare the signature
on the given cartridge case with the signature on a test
cartridge case to determine whether or not the given cartridge
case was fired in a firearm with the same class characteristics
as those of the suspected firearm. If the requisite agreement
in class characteristics is found to exist and the reference point
is established on the given cartridge case, the next step is to
compare the signature on two or more test cartridge cases to
determine the identities and to reconcile the diversities.
* Admissibility of ballistics expert testimony. – A witness
skilled in ballistics may be permitted to testify to the effect that
he identified the pistol from which a bullet found at the scene of
the homicide was fired, as a result of comparison of marking
on that bullet and on shells also found at the scene of the
homicide, with those found on bullets and shells fired by the
witness through the pistol, the test upon which he passed his
observations and formed his opinion being minutely described
to the court.
* Weight of ballistics expert’s opinion. – A ballistics expert
conclusion that bullets were fired from a particular gun does
not invade the province of the court. Testimony that he was
convinced, as a result of the test made by him, that a bullet
found at the scene of the homicide was fired through the pistol
in evidence, which admittedly belonging to defendant, is an
expression of an opinion based on his observations, and not
objectionable as stating a fact, and thus invading the province
of the court.
86
E. PARAFFIN OR NITRATE TEST
* Method to determine whether a person has recently fired
a gun. – It is usual in criminal investigations of cased of
murder or homicide to apply nitrate test commonly known as
paraffin test on the hands of the suspected person to
determine whether or not such person has recently fired a gun.
(People vs. Timbol, G.R. Nos. 47471, 47472 and 47473).
F. CAUSE OF DEATH – NATURE AND CAUSE OF
WOUNDS
* Cause of death. – Where a body had been found but the
cause of death is unknown, opinions of experts are generally
indispensable to assist the court in determining whether the
death was caused by accident, disease or violence. The
cause of death of a person is considered so within the range of
scientific knowledge that medical expert testimony is
admissible as to such cause; or as to the different ways in
which the death might have been caused, that death did or did
not result from a given wound or injury, which of several bullet
wounds was the most fatal where a person died after being
shot several times or how long a person had been dead. Such
testimony is not proper to contradict eyewitnesses.
* Manner and cause of death. – In all cases where cause of
death is not one common observation or knowledge,
physicians and surgeons – medical experts – may give opinion
testimony, derived from their own observations of the body of
the deceased or from scientific deductions from given facts, as
to the probable causes of death, provided there are sufficient
facts in evidence upon which to base the conclusion.
* Character of weapon inflicting wound. – A competent
expert may testify from the nature of a wound as to the
character of the weapon which caused it, and even non-expert
testimony is sometimes accepted in this connection.
* Whether wound or other injuries were self-inflicted. – The
general rule seems to be that opinions as to whether wounds
and injuries were or were not self inflicted and not admissible
where the facts are fully presentable to the court and are such
that special knowledge or skill is not an essential to the
formation of an intelligent opinion upon the question; but where
such knowledge or skill is necessary or where the facts cannot
be fully represented, the opinions of witnesses having such
knowledge or skill are admissible as an aid to the court.
* Basis of opinion. – To be admissible, it must be based on
facts observed by the physician in the course of his attendance
upon, or examination of, the subject. Facts proved in the case
by direct testimony overheard by the witness, or facts
hypothetically stated, mere guesses or speculative opinions
are inadmissible.
G. SANITY OR INSANITY
* General rule. – Mental incapacity is a field in which the
opinions of experts are frequently to for the purpose of aiding
the court in drawing inferences from facts, which have been
detailed to it. Medical experts and experts with relation to
mental diseases may give an opinion upon the mental
condition of the witness, based upon facts and circumstances
within their own observations; upon hypothetical questions
based upon facts and circumstances in evidence; and upon
facts detailed by the witnesses.
* Expert witness. – He should have a general knowledge as a
medical man or with scientific training upon the subject. Those
who have had the care of insane persons are generally
received as competent including physicians in general practice
and trained nurses who are accustomed to attend upon the
sick.
H. VALUE OF PERSONAL OR REAL PROPERTY
* Opinion evidence on the value of personal and real
property. – Opinion evidence is usually admitted from
persons, who are not strictly experts, but who from residing
and doing business in the vicinity have familiarized themselves
with land values and are more able to form and opinion on the
subject at issue.
* Expert evidence on the value of land taken by eminent
domain. – A person engaged in a business of holding a public
office, which required the knowledge of real estate values is a
competent witness as to the value of land with which he is
familiar. The opinions of experts as to value, however, are not
to be passively received and blindly followed, but are to be
weighed by the court and judged in view of all testimony in the
case and the judge own personal knowledge of affairs.
* Market value. – The price fixed by the buyer and the seller in
the open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal trade
and competition; the price and value established or shown by
sale, public or private, in the ordinary course of business; the
fair value of the property as between one who desires to sell
and one who desires to purchase; and the general or ordinary
price at which property may be bought and sold in a given
locality.
* Assessed value. – Assessed value may be admitted as
evidence but it is of little value ina judicial investigation to
determine the market value of the property.
H. OTHER SUBJECTS OF EXPERT TESTIMONY
* Subjects that may be proved by experts. – This includes
the following:
1. Age
87
 2. Bloodstains
3. Hair
4. X-ray, pictures
5. Characters in certain writings which needs to be
deciphered
6. Language in certain writings not understood by the
court
7. Unwritten law
8. Proof of unwritten foreign laws
* Qualification of witness. – The witness must be shown to
the satisfaction of the court to possess sufficient knowledge to
render his evidence of value.
* Opinions of courts of foreign states and nations. –
Judicial opinions offered as proof of the unwritten law of a
foreign state or nation have been held admissible in evidence,
even in the absence of a statutory provision authorizing the
admission thereof in evidence. However, the fact that a
purported decision does not appear in the original reports has
been held sufficient ground for disregarding it, although it does
appear in an unofficial publication.
Section 50.Opinion of ordinary witnesses. — The opinion of a
witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in
evidence regarding —
(a) the identity of a person about whom he has
adequate knowledge;
(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient
familiarity; and
(c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
sufficiently acquainted.
The witness may also testify on his impressions of the emotion,
behavior, condition or appearance of a person. (44a)
1. Source. – This provision is a reproduction of Section 44,
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
2. In general. – Well-settled is the rule that a witness can
testify to those facts only which he knows of his own
knowledge; he should not be allowed to state conclusions
or inferences which are for the court to make.
3. Proper basis or predicate for witness’ opinion. –
Before an ordinary witness may be allowed to give his
opinion on the identity, handwriting, the mental sanity of a
person, or to give his impressions of the emotion,
behavior, condition or appearance of a person, the proper
basis or predicate upon which he bases his opinion must
first be laid.
4. Opinion of ordinary witness as to identity of a person.
– An ordinary witness may give his opinion regarding the
identity of a person when he has adequate knowledge of
his identity. Because of the difficulty of describing the
circumstances which established identity in terms
conveying the idea of identification, witnesses who are
shown to be qualified by their opportunities for observation
are permitted to testify as to the identity of persons or
things. The rule applies to criminal prosecutions as well as
to civil actions. There are, however, instances in which
opinions have been excluded – usually, it seems, because
of the facts of the particular case.
Under the present rule, the statements of the witness as to
identity are not to be rejected because he is unable to
describe the features of the person in question, or the
latter’s clothing or other particulars on which the witness’
conclusion depends. Identification may be based upon
voice alone; and it is obviously impossible for a witness to
describe tones of voice in such a manner that from the
description alone the court can arrive at any satisfactory
conclusion.
5. Physical condition – A witness need not be an expert in
medical matters in order to be competent to express an
opinion as to the physical condition of another. And it is
clear that in describing such a condition the witness is not
required to state all the evidentiary facts on which his
opinion is based; his statement may partake largely of the
nature of a summary of, or conclusion from, such facts. A
witness may testify that in his judgment the defendant was
about the size of one of the robbers.
6. Opinion of ordinary witness as to the handwriting of a
person. – An ordinary witness may give his opinion
regarding the handwriting of a person, with which he has
sufficient familiarity. This subject is well covered by Rule
132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, which provides that
“The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
person because he has seen the person write, or has
seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness
has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired
knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence
respecting the handwriting may also be given by a
comparison, made by the witness or the court, with
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.”
The evidence frequently offered on a question of the
authenticity of a disputed writing or signature is that of
persons who are familiar with the handwriting of the
alleged writer; the opinion of such a person is universally
recognized to be admissible, even though he is in no
sense a handwriting expert.
Non-expert witnesses may not express an opinion on the
genuineness of a writing solely from comparison, but they
may express an opinion based on the knowledge received
from the handwriting of the party whom they saw write.
“The testimony of the notary public, who was not only an
instrumental witness himself but also an officer of the
court, and whose act of notarization impressed upon the
disputed Deed of Absolute Sale, the full faith and credit
which attaches to a public instrument, explicitly identifying
the signatures of the parties to the instrument and
expressly and forthrightly stating that both had appeared
before him and affixed their signatures to the said
document, must be held to control and prevail over the
opinion or conclusion of petitioner’s expert witness.” –
Alcos, et. al vs. Intermediate Appeallate Court.
7. Opinion of ordinary witness as to the mental sanity or
insanity of a person. – An ordinary witness may give his
opinion regarding the mental sanity of the person with
whom he is sufficiently acquainted.
88

An ordinary witness may give his opinion as to the sanity
or insanity of an individual, if such opinion is drawn from
the conduct of the latter, since there can be no doubt that
persons of common sense, conversant with mankind, and
having a practical knowledge of the world, if brought into
the presence of a lunatic would, in a short time, be
enabled to form an accurate and reliable opinion, not,
perhaps, of the specific and precise character of the
insanity as referable to a particular class of the insane
malady, but certainly, in a general way, of his mental
unsoundness.
8. Reason for the rule. – Reasons for this rule are found in
the considerations that the facts showing insanity, in their
entirety, frequently elude accurate, complete and detailed
statement and consequently render it difficult to afford a
satisfactory basis for the judgment of an expert; that many
witnesses can make a correct inference more readily than
they can make a detailed statement; that as commonly
presented to observation, insanity is really detected, if
carried beyond a certain point; that an unskilled observer
may be quite as able as an expert to make a clear mental
comparison between the acts and conduct of a sane
person and those of one who is laboring under mental
disability; and that to reject the inference of an observer
with suitable opportunities and faculty for observation is to
refuse to consider evidence which is frequently of the
highest possible value.
9. Opinion of a subscribing witness to a writing as to the
mental sanity or insanity of a signer. – In will cases, a
special qualification to testify exists on the part of the
attesting witnesses to the will. It is commonly held that
they may testify to their opinion of the testator’s
soundness of mind without proof of their having had the
opportunity of observing him except at the time of
executing the will. Moreover, the rule supported by the
overwhelming weight of authority is that no foundation
need be laid for receiving the opinion of a subscribing
witness to a will as to the soundness of the testator’s mind
at the time of executing the will, other than to show his
status as a subscribing witness. Many courts have
reached such conclusion on the theory that it may be
presumed that the attesting witness performed his duty to
observe the mental condition of the testator’s mind at the
time of executing the will.
10. Negativing testamentary capacity. – The testimony of
an attesting witness to a will tending to show that the
testator was of unsound mind or lacked testamentary
capacity is admissible. Such is held to be the rule,
notwithstanding the view is taken that a person requested
to witness a will should observe the testator and be
satisfied of his mental capacity before signing as a
witness. Although a person who attaches his name as a
witness to a testamentary instrument impliedly certifies
that the testator is of sound mind and competent to make
a will, he will be permitted to contradict the attestation
clause and testify as to the actual facts. That the witness
may deserve censure for having attested a will of a person
whom he is ready to declare of unsound mind when the
validity of the instrument is later brought into question is
not a sufficient reason for refusing to hear such testimony.
11. Impressions as to emotion, behavior, condition or
appearance. – A witness may testify on his impressions of
the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
person.
It is usually competent for a witness to state his
impression of another’s manner or appearance, such as
that the latter was “nervous” or “excited”, that he was
“mad”. But a witness cannot testify to uncommunicated
motive or intention of a party, such as he thought the
deceased intended to kill someone or be killed, that two
people were “antagonistic”, that defendant laughed
because she cut deceased, whether defendant was
“joking” in what he said, that the accused “looked pretty
vigorous” or that one was “jealous”, as an opinion or
impression is a mere guess or speculation and
inadmissible.
12. Opinion limited to expressions of his own
impressions. – While one may testify in opinion form as
to impression made upon his own senses, he cannot go
further and testify as to the impression such facts would
have had upon others. In a case decided by the Supreme
Court of Washington, the trial court refused to permit a
witness shown to be acquainted with the locale, to give his
opinion as to whether a stranger driving over a certain
street at night would reasonably believe he was on a
through street.
13. Hypothetical question not permissible. – A non-expert
witness cannot give an opinion as to the sanity or insanity
of the accused based in whole or in part upon an abstract
hypothetical question, but must base his opinion solely
upon his own personal knowledge, observation,
acquaintance, etc., with the accused.
14. Witness must give reason for his opinion. – In giving
his opinion, the non-expert must state facts upon which his
opinion was based. It is indisputable that it should appear
somewhere in the testimony of the witness that he had the
testimonial qualification of previous observation of the
person whose sanity he undertakes to give evidence. It
must appear, as a preliminary to the expression of his
opinion that he has had the means of observation. He
must give the facts of his knowledge and
acquaintanceship with the person concerning whose
sanity he is called to testify. After giving these facts, he
may express his opinion. The weight of the opinion, or its
value, is then developed further by evidence of the
particular facts coming under his observation, and on
which he bases his opinion.
15. Examination of non-expert witnesses. – The general
rules as to the examination of witnesses, with such
modification as the character of the testimony renders
necessary, apply to the examination of witnesses giving
evidence. A witness who has stated that he has no
opinion should not be pressed to give an opinion. A
question which is misleading or indefinite should not be
permitted, and a question as to whether accused’s
demeanor on the witness stand was different from that
when the witness met him at a certain time has been
excluded as unfair.
16. Cross-examination of non-expert witnesses. – A
witness testifying as to his opinion may be cross-examined
89
 as to the facts and grounds upon which his opinion is
based, and generally cross-examination legitimately
tending to test the accuracy and truthfulness of the
witness and the value of his testimony should be
permitted. The cross-examination must be confined to the
scope of the examination in chief, and a question based
on an assumption not warranted by the evidence is
inadmissible. It has been held that on cross-examination
of a witness who has testified to sanity or insanity of
testator, he may be asked as to testator’s capacity to
make a will in order to test the witness, but not to establish
the fact; but on the other hand, it has been considered that
testimony of attesting witnesses, that testatrix at the time
of the execution of the will was of disposing memory,
received without objection, gave contestant no right to ask,
on cross-examination of a non-expert for proponent, for
his opinion whether testatrix was of a disposing mind.
17. Latest Jurisprudence.
People of the Philippines, vs. Efren Castillo, GR No.
186533, August 9, 2010
“The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is
given, may be received in evidence regarding the
mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
acquainted.”
Appellant anchors his argument for acquittal on the
alleged failure of the prosecution to establish AAA’s
mental retardation to make him guilty of rape under Article
266-A, par. 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant
concludes that his guilt has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court rejected the said
argument.
Section 50, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
explicitly provides that the opinion of a witness for which
proper basis is given, may be received in evidence
regarding the mental sanity of a person with whom he is
sufficiently acquainted.
Accordingly, it is competent for the ordinary witness to
give his opinion as to the sanity or mental condition of a
person, provided the witness has had sufficient
opportunity to observe the speech, manner, habits, and
conduct of the person in question. Commonly, it is
required that the witness details the factors and reasons
upon which he bases his opinion before he can testify as
to what it is.
In the case at bench, BBB testified that AAA has been
suffering from epilepsy since she was nine years old,
which is one of the reasons why AAA was not able to
finish her Grade I level. AAA also had to stop schooling
because she had difficulties understanding her lessons in
school, she cannot write well, she had poor memory and
she had difficulty answering even the simplest question
asked of her. BBB further stated that AAA is the eldest of
her four children; however, compared to her younger
siblings, AAA had a hard time comprehending the
instructions given to her at home and in school.
It bears stressing that the deprivation of reason
contemplated by law need not be complete; mental
abnormality or deficiency is sufficient. Thus, it is clear from
the foregoing that AAA’s impaired learning capacity, lack
of personal hygiene and difficulty in answering simple
questions, as testified to by her mother and the Guidance
Psychologist who had an opportunity to observe her
appearance, manner, habits and behavior, are indicative
that she is truly suffering from some degree of mental
retardation.
Section 51.Character evidence not generally
admissible; exceptions: —
(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1) The accused may prove his good moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged.
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may
not prove his bad moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged.
(3) The good or bad moral character of the
offended party may be proved if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense
charged.
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case
is admissible only when pertinent to the issue of
character involved in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14,
(46a, 47a)
1. Source. – This provision is a reproduction of Sections 46
and 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
A. IN GENERAL
2. Character defined. – Character is defined to be the
possession by a person of certain qualities of mind or
morals, distinguishing him from others. The opinion
generally entertained of a person derived from the
common report of the people who are acquainted with
him; his reputation.
3. Character distinguished from reputation. – “Character”
strictly speaking, means that which a person or thing really
is, while “reputation” means what a person is estimated,
said, supposed, or thought, to be by others. Character is
internal, reputation is external; one is the substance, the
other is the shadow.
4. Good moral character defined. – Good moral character
means a character that measures up as good among the
people of the community in which the person lives, or that
is up to the standard of the average citizen; that status
which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright
conduct.
5. Ways of proving good or bad character of a party. –
The rule is that testimony to prove the good or bad
character of a party to a civil action or of the defendant in
a criminal prosecution must relate and be confined to the
general reputation which such person sustains in the
community or neighborhood in which he lives or has lived.
B. CHARACTER IN CRIMINAL CASES
90

6. Accused may prove his good moral character. – Proof
of the good moral character of the accused strengthens
the presumption of his innocence; and by establishing
good character a presumption is created that the accused
did not commit the crime. This view proceeds upon the
theory that a person of good character and high reputation
is not likely to have committed the act charged against
him.
7. When accused may introduce evidence of his good
moral character. – It is always relevant for the defendant
to offer affirmative evidence of good moral character,
when the same is pertinent to the moral trait involved in
the offense charged.
8. Time and place of accused character. – Evidence of the
defendant’s character should be confined to a time not
very remote from the date of the commission of the crime.
It should relate to the time of the act in question and
before. Generally speaking, it is the reputation up to the
time of the commission of the offense only which is
admissible.
9. Accused cannot prove the good moral character of his
co-accused; exception. – Though the accused may
prove his own character, he will not be permitted to prove
that others conspiring with him and jointly indicted, or who
are suspected of complicity in the crime, are men of good
character. This evidence is not in the last relevant to show
his innocence, as the fact that the friends or
acquaintances of the accused are men of unimpeachable
character, in no way proves that he is a person of good
character.
10. Negative evidence of good character or reputation. – It
is well settled that the testimony of a witness to the effect
that he has never heard anything against the character or
reputation of a person is admissible to prove the good
character of such person, provided the witness is shown to
have been in such position that he would have heard
anything that was said concerning the person’s character
or reputation. Negative evidence is viewed as the most
cogent evidence of a person’s good character and
reputation, because in the absence of any discussion
about character, it may reasonably be presumed that the
person’s reputation is good.
11. No presumption may be inferred where defendant
offers no evidence of his good character. – If the
defendant offers no evidence of his good character, no
legal presumption can be drawn from such omission
prejudicial to the defendant, or that, his character is bad.
However, if he desires to put his character in issue, he has
the right to the benefit of his previous good character or
reputation, so far as it is at variance with the crime
charged.
12. Right of state to introduce evidence of bad moral
character. – It is generally recognized that the state
cannot, in a criminal prosecution, introduce evidence
attacking the character of the accused, unless the
accused first puts his good character in issue by
introducing evidence to sustain his good character or
reputation or has become a witness in his own behalf.
13. Evidence of specific acts not admissible to prove bad
character. – Evidence of specific acts or conduct of a
person upon particular occasions bearing upon his
character, is usually held to be admissible. The admission
of such evidence would raise collateral issues and divert
the mind of the judge from the matter at hand. Thus, the
state in rebutting the evidence of the defendant’s good
character is confined to evidence showing his general
reputation as to having a bad character, and not to specific
acts derogatory to his good character. One accused of a
crime cannot testify in defense that he has never before
been accused of, or arrested for, crime.
14. When evidence of specific acts admissible. – The
reasons of practical policy affecting the rule excluding
proof of specific conduct of a party do not apply with the
same force where the character of third persons is
involved.
15. When character is in issue in criminal cases. –
Character may itself be a fact-in-issue. In numerous
offenses against social morality, as defined by the criminal
law, the character of a person may be an element in the
offense.
Whether it is actual character or reputed character
depends upon the policy and the words of the local
statute, as interpreted by the courts.
16. Moral character of the offended party. – The good or
bad moral character of the offended party may be proved
if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged. This
rule is applied with frequency in cases of homicide and
sex offenses.
17. Character of offended party in rape and seduction
cases. – In any prosecution involving the unchaste act by
a man against a woman, where the willingness of the
woman is material, such as rape and acts of
lasciviousness, the woman’s character as to chastity is
admissible to show whether or not she consented to the
man’s act. Thus, in the prosecution for rape, or for
enticement to prostitution, or in an action or prosecution
for indecent assault (acts of lasciviousness), the woman’s
character as to chastity is admissible; but not in a
prosecution for rape under the age of consent.
18. Character of offended party in homicide cases. – On
prosecution for homicide, evidence of the bad character of
the deceased is irrelevant, for as frequently said, the law
protects everyone from unlawful violence, regardless of
character, and the service done the community in ridding it
of a violent and dangerous man is, in the eyes of the law,
no justification of the act.
19. Character of offended party in murder cases. – While
the good or bad moral character of the victim may be
availed of as an aid to determine the probability or
improbability of the commission of an offense, such is not
necessary in a crime of murder where the killing is
committed with treachery or premeditation.
C. CHARACTER IN CIVIL CASES
91
20. Character evidence in civil cases. – Of character
evidence in ordinary civil actions, even those wherein
fraud is imputed, it has been well observed that if such
evidence is proper, then a person may screen himself
from the punishment due to fraudulent conduct till his
character becomes bad. Every man must be answerable
for every improper act, and the character of every
transaction must be ascertained by its own circumstances,
and not by the character of the parties.
27. Latest jurisprudence.
21. Distinction between the rule on character evidence in
criminal and civil cases. – In criminal cases, evidence of
the good character of the accused is most properly and
with good reason admissible in evidence, because there is
a fair and just presumption that a person of good character
would not commit a crime; but in civil cases, such
evidence is with equal good reason not admitted, because
no presumption would fairly arise, in the very great
proportion of such cases, from the good character of the
defendant, that he did not commit the breach of contract or
of civil duty alleged against him.
22. Where evidence of moral character admissible in civil
cases. – As a general rule, the character of a party to a
civil action is not a proper subject of inquiry, for, while it is
recognized that ground for an inference of some logically
probative force as to whether or not a person did a certain
act may be furnished by the fact that his character is such
as might reasonably be expected to predispose him
toward or against such an act, this consideration is
outweighed by the practical objections to opening the door
to this class of evidence.
23. “Putting character in issue” or “character involved in
the issue” construed. – “Putting character in issue” or
“character involved in the issue” is a technical expression,
which does not mean simply that the character may be
affected by the result, but that it is of particular importance
in the suit itself, as the character of the plaintiff in an action
of slander, or that of a woman in an action on the case for
seduction.
24. Evidence of moral character of a third person. – An
issue in a civil case sometimes involves a third person’s
act having a moral quality. On such an issue, the third
person’s moral trait would have probative value, and there
is no practical policy against it. Court sometimes admit it,
and sometimes exclude it.
25. Character in mitigation of damages or in excuse or
defense to the action. – In some civil actions, the
measure of compensation may be affected by the
plaintiff’s character.
D. CHARACTER OF WITNESS
26. Evidence of good character of witness. – Evidence of
the good character of a witness is not admissible until
such character has been impeached. The character or
reputation of a witness must be attacked or impeached
before testimony sustaining his character or reputation can
be admitted, but it is not necessary that character
witnesses for impeachment purposes should first be
introduced if the veracity or character of the witness been
substantially impeached in other ways, especially if he is a
stranger in the county where the trial is being conducted.
Evidence in rebuttal to sustain a witness’ character or
reputation has been assailed in order to discredit him, or
when the opposite party brings out matters, which, if true,
tend to diminish the credibility of the witness by
disparaging his character.
Civil Service Commission vs. Allyson Belagan, GR No.
132164, October 19, 2004
“Not every good or bad moral character of the
offended party may be proved under this provision.
Only those which would establish the probability or
improbability of the offense charged. This means that
the character evidence must be limited to the traits
and characteristics involved in the type of offense
charged.”
Generally, the character of a party is regarded as legally
irrelevant in determining a controversy. One statutory
exception is that relied upon by respondent, i.e., Section
51 (a) 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence,
which we quote here:
"SEC. 51. Character evidence not generally
admissible; exceptions. –
(a) In Criminal Cases:
xxx xxx
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended
party may be proved if it tends to establish in any
reasonable degree the probability or improbability of
the offense charged."
It will be readily observed that the above provision pertains
only to criminal cases, not to administrative offenses. And
even assuming that this technical rule of evidence can be
applied here, still, we cannot sustain respondent’s posture.
Not every good or bad moral character of the offended
party may be proved under this provision. Only those
which would establish the probability or improbability of
the offense charged. This means that the character
evidence must be limited to the traits and characteristics
involved in the type of offense charged.
In the present administrative case for sexual harassment,
respondent did not offer evidence that has a bearing on
Magdalena’s chastity. What he presented are charges for
grave oral defamation, grave threats, unjust vexation,
physical injuries, malicious mischief, etc. filed against her.
Certainly, these pieces of evidence are inadmissible under
the above provision because they do not establish the
probability or improbability of the offense charged.
Obviously, in invoking the above provision, what
respondent was trying to establish is Magdalena’s lack of
credibility and not the probability or the improbability of the
charge. In this regard, a different provision applies.
92
93