RULE 128 General Provisions: 1. Sanctioned by These Rules - It Is Not Evidence When It Is

RULE 128
General Provisions
Explanatory Note for Rule 128 Section 1:

No amendment was made under this Rule. The Amended
Rules on Evidence retains the definition of evidence under the old
rule. Evidence as defined under Rule 128 section 1 has four
component elements:
1. Sanctioned by these rules – It is not evidence when it is

excluded by law or rules, even it proves the existence or
non-existence of a fact in issue. It is the evidence that t is
allowed under these rules or more accurately not excluded
by these rules.
2. Evidence as a means of ascertainment - Evidence is

not an end in itself but merely as a “means” of ascertaining
the truth of a matter of fact.
3. In a judicial proceeding- This contemplate of a jural

conflict not merely dispute between two contending
parties.
4. The truth respecting a matter of fact – it refers to an

issue of facts and is both substantive and procedural.
Three Types of Truth
1. Factual or moral truth- The truth court seeks to know based

on facts.
2. Judicial truth- Truth found by the court based on evidence
collected
3. Ideal or Perfect Truth – Actual truth (both factual and judicial
truth)
Evidence vs Proof
Evidence is the means of proof; proof is the effect of the

evidence, the establishment of a fact by evidence.
The Problem of Ascertaining the Facts
Every evidential question involves the relationship between

Factum Probans and the Factum Probanbdum.
Factum Probandum Factum Probans

Is the ultimate fact or facts Is the evidentiary fact or
sought to be established. facts by which factum
probandum is to be
This is the question of established.
what.
This is the question of
how.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE
Direct vs Circumstantial
Direct Circumstantial
It is evidence to the It is a proof of a fact taken
precise point; which if singularly or collectively
believed, proves the which may be presumed. It
existence of a fact in issue indirectly proved a fact in
without inference or issue through an inference,
presumption. which the fact finder draw
from the evidence
established.
Guidelines in appreciating
circumstantial evidence:
1. Acted upon with
caution.
2. All essential facts
must be identical to
the facts.
Positive vs Negative
Positive Negative
It affirms occurrence of an Denies the occurrence of an
event or existence of a fact. event or existence of a fact.
It generally prevails over Example: Denial and Alibi

negative evidence.
Denial – The usual refuge of the
offender is on inherently weak
defense, and must be
buttressed by other persuasive
evidence of non-culpability to
merit the credibility
Alibi – it is a settled doctrine

that the defense of alibi is
inherently weak and must be
rejected when the accused is
satisfactorily and categorically
established by the eye
witnesses to the offense,
especially when the eye
witnesses have no ill-motive to
testify falsely
Primary vs Secondary evidence
Primary Secondary
The law regard this with greater The law regards this as
certainty. necessarily inferior and shows
in its face that there is a better
Example: Birth Certificate evidence exist.
Example: Photocopy
Conclusive vs Prima facie
Conclusive Prima facie

The law does not allow this kind That which standing alone and
of evidence to be contradicted. uncontradicted is sufficient to
established a fact until it is
Example: Judicial Admissions, disproved.
DNA profile of a person
Cumulative vs Corroborative
Cumulative Corroborative
It refers to the additional It referes to additional evidence
evidence of the same kind of a different kind or character
tending to prove the same but tending to prove the same
point. point, to confirm or support it.
Rules of Evidence Classified.
1. Rule of Probative Policy - To improve the probative value

of the evidence offered. These consist of the following rules:
a. Exclusionary Rule – exclude certain kind of evidence, on
grounds partly of relevancy and partly of policy.
b. Preferential Rules- These require one kind of evidence in
preference to any other.
c. Analytic Rule – These rules subject certain kind of
evidence to rigid scrutiny, as to expose its possible
weakness and shortcomings.
Example: Cross- examination is require to produce the
shortcoming of the other evidence.
d. Prophylactic – These are rule which are beforehand,
certain measures to prevent risk or falsity or mistake.
Example: Witness take an oath before testifying.
e. Quantitative Rules – These rules requires certain kind s of
evidence to be produced in certain quantity.
Example: Extrajucial confession is not sufficient unless
corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
2. Rules of Extrinsic Policy - These rules seek to exclude

useful evidence for the sake of upholding other policies
considered more paramount.
Example: illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in any
proceedings.

Rules on Evidence retains the scope of Rules of Evidence. This
rule emphasized that these rules are applicable in judicial
proceeding in regular courts and are not applicable to
administrative proceedings.

This rule was amended; the Constitution was added to this
rule. Evidence is not admissible when it is excluded by the
Constitution, the law or these rules.
Axioms of Admissibility
1. None but facts having rational probative value are

admissible. It assumes no particular doctrine as to kind of
ratiocination implied – whether practical or scientific, coarse
and ready or refined and systematic. It prescribed merely
that whatever is presented as evidence shall be presented
on the hypothesis that it is calculated, according to the
prevailing standard of reasoning, to effect rational
persuasion.
2. All facts having rational probative value are admissible,
unless some specific rule forbid. Rule of exclusion are,
exception to the general admissibility of all that is rational
and probative.
Admissibility is determined by relevancy – an affair of

logic and not of law – second, but only indirectly, by the
law of evidence which in strictness, only declares
whether matter which is logically probative is excluded.
Admissibility vs Weight
Admissibility Weight
It is the character and quality It is the value given or
that any material must possess importance to evidence by the
in order to be used in court. court.
In the case of W-Red Construction vs Court of Appeals,

the court held that the after the court determined the
admissibility of an evidence, the next issue to be resolved is the
weight of an evidence, for admissibility of evidence should not be
confused with its probative value.
Kinds of admissibility
1. Multiple Admissibility – Evidence is admissible for several

purpose. It may be admissible for one purpose, but it may be
admitted to another provided it satisfies all the requirement
prescribed by law in order that it may be admissible for the
purpose by which it is presented, even if it does not satisfy
the other requisites for its admissibility for other purposes.
2. Curative Admissibility or fighting fire with fire – If a

party introduces incompetent evidence, may the adverse
party rebut it by a similar incompetent evidence.
Example: Hearsay evidence when admitted may be rebutted
by another hearsay evidence.
3. Condition admissibility – a fact offered in evidence may

appear to be immaterial unless it is connected with other
facts to be subsequently proved. In such case, the evidence
may be received on the condition that the other facts be
afterwards proved.
Exclusionary Rule/ The Fruit of Poisonous Tree
Evidence that is quiet clearly direct or primary in its

relationship to the prior arrest or searched must be excluded.
In the case of Ejercity vs Sandiganbayan, and Tolentino

vs Mendoza the court ruled that when the law does not provide
that the evidence is not admissible or subject to exclusionary rule,
the court cannot make it inadmissible. The law should expressly
provide that it is inadmissible as evidence.
Exception to the Doctrine of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
1. Inevitable Discovery – when a police officer is not searching

for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently came
across an incriminating object.
In the case of People vs Abe Valdez y Cruz, the court held

that the evidence is not admissible as the police team was
dispatched to appellant kaingin precisely to search for and uproot
the prohibited flora. The evidence was not inadvertently found by
the police, hence, they needed a search warrant, henceforth, the
evidence is not admissible.
2. Attenuation Doctrine- rule provides that despite the illegality

in obtaining evidence, such evidence may be admissible if
the connection between the evidence and the illegal method
is sufficiently remote or attenuated.
Evidence excluded by the Constitution. This is an absolute

rule and applicable in all types of case.
1. Art. 3 Sec 2 Evidence obtained in violation against

unreasonable search and seizure.
2. Private and Communication
3. Extrajudicial Confession
4. Self- incrimination violation

No amendment was made under this provision.
Relevancy is the initial and true test of admissibility and in

the absence of some exclusionary rule, legalistic defect which
would bar the evidence for some other purpose but which are
applicable to the purpose for which it is offered, do not render it
inadmissible generally.
Component of Relative Evidence
1. Materiality looks to the relation between the propositions

for which the evidence is offered and the issue of the
case. Where the evidence is offered to help prove a
proposition, which is not a matter in issue, the evidence is
immaterial
Test of Materiality - Whether the evidence offered relates

to the issue. What matters in a case are in issue is
determined mainly by the pleading, the applicable
principles of substantive law and the pre- trial order if any.
2. Probativeness - it is the tendency of evidence to
established the proposition that it is offered to prove. It
referes to the value of evidence.
Collateral matters are matters other than the facts in issue

and which are offered as basis for inference as to the existence or
non-existence of the facts in issue.
Classification of Collateral Matters
1. Antecedent Circumstances
a. Moral character, habits or customs
b. Plan design or conspiracy
2. Concomitant Circumstances
a. Opportunity. If the accused was the only one who had the
opportunity to do the act charged, such circumstances
may be taken against him
b. Incompatibility. When the Concomitance Circumstances
are incompatible with the doing of an act by a person,
they may proved to show that the person is not the author
of the act
c. Alibi – Weakest defense
3. Subsequent Circumstances. These are the circumstances
taking place after the disputed fact occurred which might
show the truth or the falsity of the facts or controversy such
as flight, concealment, nervousness, despair, fingerprint,
resemblances, bloodstain.
RULE 129
What Need Not Be Proved
Judicial Notice is based on the maxim “what is known,
need not be proved,” hence when the rule is invoked, the court
may dispense with the presentation of evidence on judicially
cognizable facts. It abbreviate litigation by the admission of the
matters that need no evidence because judicial notice is a
substitute for formal proof of matter by evidence. Evidence
should be dispensed with because the matter is so well known
and is common knowledge not to be disputable.
Relieved from Presenting Evidence
1. Not subject of judicial

2. Facts subject of judicial admission
3. Facts legally presumed
4. Facts stipulated by the parties and counsel
5. Facts exclusively within the knowledge of the parties
6. Facts which is irrelevance
7. Facts in the nature of negative allegation
Mandatory Judicial Notice – no motion or hearing is necessary for

the court to take judicial notice of a fact because this is a matter
which a court ought to take judicial notice of.
What matters are subject to mandatory judicial notice?
1. The existence and territorial extent of states

2. The Political history,forms of the government and symbols of
nationality of states
3. The law of nation
4. The admiralty and maritime courts of the world
5. The political constitution and the history of the Philippines
6. The official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
department of the National Government of the Philippines
7. The law of nature
8. The measure of time
9. The geographical division
“Legislative facts” describe the great body of information and

expository material which contributes to rationalization by
capable, intelligent and objectively thinking people in the process
not only of ascertaining what the common law and social
concepts are but also the promoting of their improvement and
development. It is concerned with the specific facts which are
relevant to the resolution of a disputed factual situation in a given
case
“Adjudicatory facts’ are simply the facts of the particular case

which are determinative of the outcome of litigation. Such facts
are ordinarily established by evidence unless they are of such
common acceptance they stand as established without other
proof. It is these facts with which the rules of judicial notice deals.

Discretionary matters are those matters that are accepted
by the public without qualification. There must be notoriety of
facts; the matters must be authoritative; must be within the
territorial jurisdiction; must be without need of demonstration.
A court may take judicial notice of matters:
a. which are of public knowledge, or
b. are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or
c. ought to be known to judges because of their judicial

functions.
Requisites of Discretionary Judicial Notice
1. The matter must be one of common knowledge

2. The matter must be settled beyond reasonable doubt
3. The knowledge must exist within the jurisdiction of the court
A judge must take judicial notice of a fact if it is one which is

the proper subject of the judicial cognizance even if it is not within
the personal knowledge. However a judge may not take judicial
notice of a fact if it is not part of evidence or not a fact generally
known within its territorial jurisdiction.
Foreign Law
A court of the forum will not take judicial notice of the law
prevailing in another country. Foreign law must be alleged and
proved. If the foreign law is not alleged and proved it must be
presumed that the laws of the jurisdiction hearing the case has
the same law under the foreign law under the Doctrine Of
Processual Presumption

During the trial, the court:
1. On its own initiative, or
2. 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:
1. on its own initiative , or
2. On request of a party
- may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to
be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material
issue in the case.
In the case of People vs Tundag, the court ruled that before

the court may take judicial notice of the age of the victim, there
should be a hearing as required by Section 3 of Rule 129.
Distinction between Judicial Notice of Sources and Notice
of Facts
Distinction should be drawn between taking judicial notice of

sources, documents and materials without formal proof of their
genuineness or authenticity, and taking judicial notice of facts.
The court may find that a source may be genuine, the fact recited
therein is not clearly indisputable and should therefore, be
subject to proof.
In the determination of whether a matter is within the

domain of judicial notice, a judge may himself resort to other
source, but should bring it to attention of litigant. If the court is
not convinced that matter clearly falls within the field of judicial
notice, the judge will inform the parties that the matter should be
proved by evidence in the usual manner.

Judicial Admission- is an admission:
a. Verbal, or
b. Written
- made by the party in course of the proceedings of the same

case, does not require proof.
- The admission may be contradictedonly by:
a. Showing that it was made through palpable mistake, or
b. That no such admission was made.
The following are not deemed admitted:
1. Immaterial allegation
2. Incorrect conclusions of facts drawn from facts set out in
the complaint
3. Conclusion of law
4. General averments contradicted by specific averments
5. Unliquidated damages
No admissions are permitted in:
6. Annulment of marriage
7. Legal separation
In the case of Brillante vs CA, the court ruled that the

accused judicially admitted that he made the alleged utterance
but the same was made in the shield of privilege communication
because he made them public out of legal, social and moral duty
to safeguard the sanctity of the election. The court ruled that
because Brillante already admitted that he named Binay,
Prudente and their Associate as the person who participated in
the planning of the election-related terrorism, the determination
of Brillante’s culpability for libel hinges on the question of whether
the statements were made with malice.
Admission in the Pleadings
Admissions made in the pleadings of a party are deemed

judicial admissions. This includes admissions made in the
complaint. Thus, they cannot be contradicted unless there is a
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made.
Admissions made in a motion are judicial admissions which

are binding on the party who made them. Such party is precluded
from denying the same unless there is a proof of palpable mistake
(Herrera-Felix v. CA, 436 SCRA 87).
Implied admission of actionable documents
When an action or defense is founded upon a written

instrument, the genuineness and due execution of the same
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party,
under oath, specifically denies them and set forth what he claims
to be the facts. Otherwise, there is a judicial admission pursuant
to sec. 8, Rule 9.
Failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an

actionable document does not preclude a party from arguing
against the document by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise,
payment, statute of limitations, estoppels, and want of
consideration. He is however precluded from arguing that the
document is a forgery because the genuineness of the document
has been impliedly admitted by his failure to deny the same
under oath.
Palpable Mistake
The mistake that would relieve the party from the effects of
his admission is not any mistake. It must be one that is palpable,
a mistake that is clear to the mind or plain to see. It is a mistake
that is readily perceived by the senses or the mind.
Consequence of Judicial Admission
A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge

that fact, as judicial admissions are waiver of proof; production of
evidence is dispensed with. No evidence is needed to prove
judicial admission and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown
to have been made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made but despite the presence of judicial
admissions in a party’s pleading, the trial court is still given
leeway to consider other evidence presented because admissions
may not necessarily prevail over documentary evidence.
RULE 130
Rules of Admissibility
Object Evidence
It is the real thing itself consists of tangible things like gun, a
broken glass, a piece of bloody clothing or the defective ladder
that caused the fall of the plaintiff.
It does not refer to the perception of the witness and
recollection of that perception. It is not a reconstruction of past
events as related by a witness on the stand. It is not a verbal
description of something. It is not a replica or a mere
representation of something.
NOTE: It appeals directly to the senses of the court. Instead of
relying on the recollection of the witnesses, an object evidence
will enable the court to have its own first-hand perception of the
evidence.
Scope Of Object/Real Evidence:
1. Sense of vision
2. Sense of hearing (auditory)
3. Sense of touch (tactile)
4. Sense of taste (gustatory); and
5. Sense of smell (olfactory)
Effects If The Object Evidence Is Relevant To The Fact In

Issue:
1. May be exhibited;
2. Examined; or
3. Viewed by the court.
4.
Requisites For The Admissibility Of Object Evidence
1. It must be relevant;
2. It must be authenticated;
3. It must be identified by a competent witness;
4. It must be formally offered.

Scope of Documentary Evidence
Documents as evidence do not necessarily refer to writings.
They may refer to any other material like objects as long as the
material contains letters, words, sounds or numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression and offered as
proof of their contents.
Under the amended Rules, Documentary evidence may

include, still picture, drawings, stored images, x-rays film, motion
pictures or videos.
Categories Of Documents As Evidence
1. Writings
2. Any other materials containing modes of written expressions
3. Photographs
Requisites For Admissibility Of Documentary Evidence
1. The document must be relevant;

2. The evidence must be authenticated;
3. The document must be authenticated by a component
witness; and
4. The document must be formally offered in evidence.
Note: The requirements for the authentication of an electronic

document do not apply to all electronic documents. Sec. 2 will
only apply when the document is a private electronic document
and when the same is offered as an authentic document.
If the electronic document is offered simply for what it is or for

what is claimed to be regardless of whether or not it is authentic.
Sec. 2 will not apply. The electronic document has only to be
identified pursuant to the suppletory application of Sec. 20, Rule
132.

Despite the word “best”, the rule does not proclaim itself as
the highest and most reliable evidence in the hierarchy of
evidence. The word best has nothing to do with the degree of its
probative value in relation to other types of evidentiary rules. It
does not mean “most superior” evidence. More accurately, it is
the original document, or the primary evidence rule.
Original document must be produce otherwise it is not

admissible. The exceptions are:
(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be

produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the
offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control

of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice or the
original cannot be obtained by local judicial processes or
procedures;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or

other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the
whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a

public officer or is recorded in a public office.
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling

issue
Note: There is no reason to apply this rule when the issue

does not involve the contents of a writing. The rule will come
into play only when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document. The rule cannot be invoked unless the contents of
a writing is the subject of judicial inquiry, in which case, the
best evidence is the original writing itself.
Q: What is the reason for the adoption of the best

evidence rule?
A: It is to prevent fraud or mistake in the proof of the

contents of a writing.
In the case of Air France vs. Carrascoso, the court

held that the testimony of a witness that the pursuer made an
entry in his notebook reading “First Class passenger was
forces to go to a tourist class against his will and that the
captain refused to intervene’ is competent and admissible
because the subject of the inquiry is not the entry but the
ouster incident. It does not come within the prescription of
the best evidence rule.

The new rule provided for the expounded definition of
original document and duplicate.
An “original” of a document is the document itself or any
counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person
executing or issuing it. An “original” of a photograph
includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data is
stored in a computer o similar device, any printout or
other output readable by sight or other means, shown to
reflect the data accurately, an “original.”
A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same

impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by
means of photography, including enlargements and
miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or
by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent
techniques which accurately reproduce the origina
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an
original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the
authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances, it is
unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the
original.
Q: What if carbon sheets are inserted between two or

more sheets of paper, and the signature on the first sheet
being reproduced in the sheets beneath by the same
stroke of the pen or writing medium?
A: All sheets are deemed as originals.
Note: Where a document is executed in duplicate or multiplicate

form, each one of the parts is primary evidence of the contents of
the document, and the other need not to be produced. In such
case, each is deemed an original.

Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents
were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to the introduction of
such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the
former existence of a document. The correct order of a proof is as
follows: existence; execution; loss; content. This order may be
changed if necessary in the discretion of the court.
Secondary evidence as to the content of a written instrument may
be introduced not only when the original has been lost or
destroyed.

When the original document is in the custody or under the
control or the party against whom the evidence is offered, he
must have reasonable notice to produce it, before secondary
evidence may be presented.
The mere fact that the document is in the hands of the
opposite party does not warrant the admission of copies or of
other secondary evidence; to be entitled to introduction of such
evidence, the proponent must show that he has done all in his
power to secure the best evidence by giving to the adversary
notice to produce the desired document.

This section is a new provision added to the amended rules.
This article is related to Sec 3. ( c ) of Rule130. This is to provide
a speedy disposition of cases.
Secondary Evidence is permissible; when the original
consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot
be examined without great loss of time and the facts sought to be
established from them is only the general results of the whole.
Requisites:
a. There must be a proof of voluminous character of records;
b. The records and accounts should be made accessible to the
adverse party so that the correctness of summary may be
tested on cross- examination
c. The general result sought to be proved is one capable of
being ascertained by calculation.
The result of an examination may be embraced in the form of

abstract, schedule or summary.

Proof of official record – the record of public documents
referred to in paragraph (a) of section 19, when admissible for
any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof
or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of
the record or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not
kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
custody. If the office in which the record is kept in a foreign
country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or
consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the
Philippines stationed in a foreign country in which the record is
kept and authenticated by the seal of his office.
The mere production of documents upon the trial, pursuant
to the notice duly served, does not make such documents
evidence, it is not until the party who demanded their production
examines them and offers them in evidence that they assume the
status of evidentiary matter.

The purpose of the rule is to give the stability to a written
agreement and remove the temptation and possibility of perjury,
which would be afforded if parol evidence was admissible. Written
instrument is more reliable than human memory.
Written Agreement
It contains all the terms agreed upon and there can be
between the parties and their successor in interest, no evidence
of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
Requisites for Rule 130 Section 10 to apply:
1. Existence of a valid contract.
2. The term of the agreement was reduced in writing
3. Between the parties and their successors in interest
4. There is dispute as to the term of the agreement
Exception to the Parol Evidence:
1. Intrinsic ambuigity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement
If the intent and meaning may be ascertained from the
language of the writing it must be construed to mean what it says
and the evidence may not be received to give it some meaning.
The Rule, however permits parol evidence, to explain an
intrinsic ambuiguity. It is also known as latent ambiguity. However
the rule does not allow to explain extrinsic ambiguity.
2. The failure of the written agreement to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties thereto
Evidence aliunde may be received where it is alleged that an
agreement does not express the true intent of the parties. When
an issue squarely presented that a contract does not express the
true intention of the parties, court will, when proper foundation is
laid therefore hear evidence for the purpose of ascertaining the
true intention of the parties.
3. The validity of a written agreement.
The rule making the exclusive evidence of the written
agreement stated therein is not applicable when the validity of
such agreement is the fact in dispute.
4. The existence of the other term s agreed to by the parties or
their successors in interest after the execution of the written
agreement.

It is not the province of the court to alter a contract by
construction or to make a new contract for the parties; its duty is
confined to the interpretation of the one which they made for
themselves without regard to its wisdom or folly as the court
cannot supply material stipulation or read into a contract words
which it does not contain. That which agreed to is the law
between the parties. Thus, obligations arising from the contracts
have the force of law between the contracting parties and should
be complied with on good faith.
No Interpretation of the Contract Where the Term is Clear
It the terms of the Contract are clear and leave no doubt
upon the intention of the parties, the literal meaning of the
stipulation shall control.
Note: The Title of the Contract does not necessarily determine its
true nature.

The various stipulation of a contract shall be interpreted
together, attributing to the doubtful ones that senses which may
result from all of them taken jointly.
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. (Art 1372, Civil Code.
In the construction of an instrument, when the general and
particular provisions are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to
the former.

In order to judge the intention of the parties, their
comtemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally
considered.

It is well – settled rule that in case of repugnance exists
between written and printed, the written portion prevails.

The court may resort to experts and interpreter to be used in
explaining certain writings.

The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a
contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity. (Art
1377, Civil Code)

The right to redeem is a natural right, and a construction of a
contract favoring it should be followed.

The usage and custom of the place shall be borne in mind in
the interpretation off the ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill
the omission of stipulations which ordinarily established.
Rules on Evidence retains the qualification of a witness under the
old rule.
Witnesses Defined
In general, a witness is one, who, being present, personally
sees or perceiving a thing, a beholder, spectator, or eyewitness.
One who testify to what he has seen, or heard, or otherwise
observed. Black’s Law Dictionary
Witness is a natural person whose statement and underoath
are made on oral or deposition of affidavit before any tribunal or
otherwise subject to the qualification prescribed by the law and
absent of the disqualification made by the law.
What are the qualifications of a witness?
A:
1. He can perceive; and in perceiving
2. He can make known his perception to others.
3. He must take either an oath or an affirmation (Sec. 1, Rule
132); and
4. He must not possess the disqualifications imposed by law
or the rules.

Hearsay Rule
Hearsay is oral testimony or documentary evidence as to

somebody’s (either the testifying witness or someone else’s)
words or actions outside of the court, where they are offered to
prove the truth of the very matter they assert.
It is mean that kind of evidence which does not derive its

value solely from the credit to be attached to the witness himself,
but rests also in part on the veracity and competency of some
other person from whom the witness has received his information.
Rationale:
Underlying the rule against hearsay are serious concerns

about the worth of hearsay evidence.
The Element of Hearsay are:
1. An assertion or conduct amounting to assertion

2. Made or done by someone other than the testifying witness
on the stand; in other words, by out of court declarant or
actor.
3. Which is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted at
the trial in which it is offered.

Rationale:
The reason why one may not testify for the other is to
obviate perjury and against the other is to prevent domestic
disunity and unhappiness.
Other reason for disqualification are:
1. Identity of Interest. The spouses are two souls in one flesh

2. The consequent danger of perjury
3. The policy of the law which deem it necessary to guard the
security and confidence of private life even at the risk of
occasional failure of justice, and which rejects such evidence
because its admission would lead to domestic disunion and
unhappiness.
4. Where want of domestic tranquility exist, there is danger of
punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the
other
Exception
In the case of People vs Francisco, the court held that the
wife can testify when the identity of interest disappears and the
consequent danger of perjury based on the identity is no longer
existent.

Privilege
A privilege is a rule of law that, to protect a particular
relationship or interest, either permits a witness to refrain from
giving the testimony he otherwise could be compelled to give, or
permit someone or usually one of the parties, to prevent the
witness from revealing certain information.
Requisites for the privilege communication between husband and
wife
1. That the spouses must have been legally married;

2. That the privilege is claimed, with regards to communication,
oral, or written, made during the marriage
3. That said communication was made confidentially
4. That the action or proceeding where the privilege is claimed
is not by one spouse against the other
Privileged Communication Between Attorney and Client
The purpose is to encourage full disclosure by the client to her
attorney of all pertinent matters, so as to further the
administration of justice. Under the amended rules, this privilege
also covered person reasonably believed by the client, to be
licensed to engage in the practice of law, other person assisting
the attorney.
Exceptions:
(i) Furtherance of a crime or fraud. If the service or advice of a
lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to
commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably
should have known to be a crime or fraud;
(ii) Claimants through same deceased client. As to a
communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim
through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the
claim are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos transaction;
(iii) Breached of duty by lawyer or client. As to a communication
relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her
client, or by the client to his or her lawyer;
(iv) Document attested by the lawyer. As to a communication
relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which
the lawyer is an attesting witness; or
(v) Joint client. As to a communication relevant to a matter of
common interest between two or more clients if the
communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or
consulted in common, when offered in an action between any of
the clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.
Privileged Communication Between Person Licensed To
Practice Medicine Or Believed By The Patient To Person
Licensed To Practice Medicine
Requisites:
1. The privilege is claimed in a civil case
2. The person acquired the information while he was attending
to the patient in his capacity
3. The information was necessary to enable him to act in his
capacity
4. The information was confidential and, if disclosed would
blacken the reputation of the patient.
A “psychotherapist” is:
(a) A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the
diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition, or
(b) A person licensed as psychologist by the government while
similarly engaged.
Privileged Communication Between Priest and Penitent
This includes those person reasonably believed by the
person to be Minister, or priest.
Rationale: It would be an annulment of Confessional Institution if
the secrecy of confession is not maintained.
Privileged Communication Made by or to a Public Officer

During or after His Term
The old rule only covered those information made during his
tenure, but it was amended and now it also include those
information made to or by the public officer after his tenure in his
or her official capacity.

What is parental privilege rule?
A: A parent cannot be compelled to testify against his child or

direct descendants.
Q: What is filial privilege?
A: A child may not be compelled to testify against his parents or

direct ascendants.
Q: May the person voluntarily testify against his parents or

children?
A: Yes.
Q: What is the scope of this rule?
A: It applies to both criminal and civil cases since the rule does
not make any distinction.
Exception:
When the testimony is indispensable in a crime against that
person or by one parent against the other.

The amended rule includes privilege relating to trade. A person
cannot be compelled to testify about any trade secret, unless the
non-diclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When
disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective
measure as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and the
parties and the furtherance of justice ma require.

Admission – is any extra-judicial statement or conduct by a party
to the present litigation that is inconsistent with a position the
party presently takes. It does not have
to be an admission “against interest”; it may even be partially
self-serving. The only requirement is that it turns out to be
contrary to the party’s present position.
Q: What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule?
A:
1. Dying declarations (Sec. 37, Rule 130);
2. Declaration against interest (Sec. 38, Rule 130);
3. Act or declaration against pedigree (Sec. 39, Rule 130);
4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree (Sec.40,
Rule 130);
5. Common reputation (Sec.41, Rule 130);
6. Part of the res gestae (Sec.42, Rule 130);
7. Entries in the course of business (Sec.43, Rule 130);
8. Commercial lists and the like (Sec.45, Rule 130);
9. Learned treatises (Sec.46, Rule 130); and
10. Testimony or deposition at a former trial (Sec.47, Rule 130)
Admissions vs Confession
Confession is the declaration of an accused expressly

acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged or of any offenses
necessarily include therein. Whereas Admission is the statement
of the accused, direct or implied of facts, to prove his guilt
Requisites for Admissibility

1. The act, declaration must have been made by a party, or by
one who is legally bound;
2. The admission must be as to a relevant fact; and
3. The admission may only be given in evidence against him
Offer Of Compromise In Criminal Cases
An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in

evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
There is no implied admission of guilt if the offer of compromise is

in relation to:
a. Quasi-offenses (criminal negligence)

b. In those cases allowed by law to be compromised
Offer Of Compromise In Civil Cases
In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of

any liability, and is not an admission against the offeror.
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet literally

means that “things done between strangers ought not to injure
those who are not parties to them”
Q: What are the 2 branches of this rule? A:
1. The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an

act, declaration, or omission of another;
2. The rule that evidence of previous conduct or similar acts at
one time is not admissible to prove that one did or did not do
same act another time.
Exceptions To The Res Inter Alios Acta Rule

(First Branch)?
1. Admission by a co-partner or agent

2. Admission by a co-inspirator
3. Admission by privies
Whatever is said by an agent to a third person, during the

course of the agency and within the scope of his actual or
apparent authority, relative to the business contemplated by the
agency, is for legal purposes also the statement of the principal
and is therefore, admissible against said principal.
The declarations of a partner may be admissible against the

other partners of the partnership.
Q: Not every declaration or act made or done by a partner or

agent is admissible against the other partners or the principal. For
the admission of a co-partner or agent to be admissible, what are
the requisites which must concur?
A:
1. The declaration or act of the partner and agent must have

been made or done within the scope of his authority
2. The declaration or act of the partner and agent must have

been made or done during the existence of the partnership or
agency
3. The existence of the partnership or agency is proven by

evidence other than the declaration or act of the partner or agent.
Q: What is the rule regarding any declaration made before the

partnership or agency existed?
A: They are not admissible against the partners or the principal
but remains admissible against the partner or agent making the
declaration. It is also necessary for the application of the
exception that the proof of the agency or partnership be from an
source independent of the declaration made by the partner or
agent.
NOTE: The above rules also apply to the declarations or acts of a

joint owner, joint debtor, or other persons jointly interested with
the party.
Conspiracy
When two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the

commission of a felony and decide to commit it (Art. 8, RPC).
Effect of Conspiracy- Once conspiracy is proven, the act of one

is the act of all.
Requisites:
1. The declaration or act be made or done during the existence

of the conspiracy
2. The declaration or act must relate to the conspiracy
3. The conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than the
declaration or act.
NOTE: Incriminating declarations of co-conspirators made in the

absence or without the knowledge of the others after the
conspiracy has come to an end is inadmissible.
G.R.: An extrajudicial confession made by an accused is

admissible against him but not admissible against his co- accused
who took no part in the confession
XPN: When the declarant or admitter repeats in court his extra-
judicial confession during the trial and the other accused is
accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the admitter, such
confession or admission is admissible against both accused.
Distinguish judicial and extra-judicial confession.
EXTRA-JUDICIAL JUDICIAL
May be given in evidence against Admissible against the
the confessant but not against his declarant’s co-accused since the
co-accused since the latter arelatter are afforded the
not afforded the opportunity to opportunity to cross-examine the
cross-examine him former.
When the extra-judicial admission of a conspirator is
confirmed at the trial, it ceases to be hearsay.
Q: The res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a

party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
admission of another. Consequently, an extra-judicial
confession is binding only upon the confession and is not
admissible against his co-accused. What is the basis for
this?
A: On a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s

own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him.
So are his conduct and declarations.
Privies
The word “privies” denotes the idea of succession not only by

right of heirship and testamentary legacy, but also that of
succession by singular title, derived from acts inter vivos as by
assignment, subrogation or purchase – in fact any act whereby
the successor is substituted in the place of predecessor in
interest. The purchaser at an execution sale is, therefore, a privy
to the execution debtor.
Requisites :
1.. There must be an act, declaration or an omission by a

predecessor-in-interest
2. The act, declaration, or omission of the predecessor must
have occurred while he was holding the title to the property
3. The act, declaration or omission must be in relation to the
property.
Admission By Silence; “Admissible Evidence”
The usual pattern for its admissibility involves a statement by a

person in the presence of a party to the action, criminal or civil.
The statement contains assertions against the party, which, if
untrue would be sufficient cause for the party to deny. His
failure to speak against the statement is admissible as an
admission.
The idea of the rule on admission by silence is that if an

accusation is made, and a reasonable person would have denied
the same if it were false, the failure to deny the accusation by
the person accused may be construed as an implied admission
of the truth of the accusation and may be given in evidence
against him.
Not every silence is an implied admission. The silence of a

person under investigation for the commission of an offense
should not be construed as an admission by silence because of
constitutional reasons (R.A. 7438, Sec. 2 (b)).
Requisites for admission by silence:
1. That he heard and understood the statement;

2. That he was at liberty to make a denial;
3. That the statement was about a matter affecting his rights
or in which he was interested and which naturally calls for a
response;
4. That the facts were within his knowledge; and
5. That the fact admitted from his silence is material to the
issue.
Confession to be admissible must:

1. It must be express
2. Voluntary
3. With Assistance of Competent and independent counsel
4. Must be in writing
The Custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing
by the investigating officer, that the report is signed or
thumbmarked, if the person arrested or detained does not know
how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained
to him by a counsel or by assisting counsel provided by the
investigating officer, otherwise, it shall be null and void.
Custodial Investigation – is the questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
Note: Confession made not under custodial investigation, even
though the requisite mentioned above is lacking is admissible.
The first branch holds that whatever one says or does or omits to
do should only affect him but should not affect or prejudice
others. Man’s actions and declarations should affect him alone
and should not affect others. Thus, if X makes a statement before
the media admitting his participation on a murder, his statement
is admissible against him under Sec. 26 of Rule 130.
Explanatory Note for Rule 130 Section 130 Section

37:
This is a new provision that provide for the definition of hearsay.
38:
The dying declarations are the ante mortem statements made by

a person after the mortal wound has been inflicted, under a belief
that death is certain, stating the facts concerning the cause of,
and the circumstances surrounding the attack.
The requisite for its admissibility are as follows:

1. The declaration must concern the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant’s death
2. That the time the declaration was made, death was
immenent
3. That the declarant is a competent witness
4. That the declarant is offered in any case in which the
declarant’s death is the subject of the inquiry.

40:
People normally speak freely and with untruth when the

statement is in their interest, but are usually unwilling to speak
falsely against their interest.
This is founded on the necessity on account of the impossibility of

obtaining other evidence from the same source, the declarant
being unavailable in person to testify on the stand on account of
death, absence from the jurisdiction or serious illness.
It refers to a declaration made by a person who at the time of his

declaration is presented in evidence is already dead or is unable
to testify. It must be one which when made, was known to the
declarant himself to be against his interest, pecuniary or moral,
and which would not have been made unless he believed it to be
true. It is not enough that a declaration against interest was
made. It is necessary that the declarant knew that the statement
was against his interest and which he would not have made had it
not be true.
E.g. a statement by the debtor that he owes the creditor a sum of

money, or an acknowledgement by the principal that he received
the money previously entrusted to his agent, are clear
declarations against the interest of the person making the
statement.

41:
Q: What does pedigree include?
A: It includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage,

death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred,
and the names of the relatives. It also embraces facts of family
history intimately connected with pedigree.
Requisites:
1. That the declarant is dead, or unable to testify;
2. That the declarant is related by birth or marriage to the
person whose pedigree is in issue;
3. The declaration was made before the controversy; and
4. The relationship between the 2 persons is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration.

Rationale: This exception, like the preceding one, has been
recognized upon the ground of necessity, since tradition is often
the sole method by which proof of matters of pedigree can be
obtained, while the limitation to which it is subjected give an
excellent illustration of the third great distinguishing principle of
English law of evidence, that all must be proved, if it all, by best
evidence of which of which they are susceptible. As the members
of the family are always those most likely to be best acquainted
with the nature of the ties of relationship by which they are united
to each other, and to have the fullest information in regard to
such matter of family history, the declaration admitted for the
purpose of establishing such facts are restricted to the statement
of the family by marriage with one so related to it.
The Reputation of a person is the common report which other

make about him, to talk about him that shows the opinion which
he is held to the community
Common reputation- As used in the law of evidence, reputation

is the prevailing belief in the community as to the existence of a
certain fact or aggregation of facts.
Reputation vs Rumor
Reputation implies the definite and final formation of opinion by

the community while Rumor implies merely a report that is not
yet fully credited
When admissible:
1. Matters of public interest more than 30 years old;
2. Matter of general interest more than 30 years old;
3. Respecting marriage and moral character
Q: To be part of the res gestae, what is the requirement?
A: The statement should have been made by a person while a

startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior to or
subsequent to such startling occurrence.
Etymological Meaning of Res Gestae
It means things done. It was originally used by the courts in the

other side of the world in the early 1800’s to create hearsay
exceptions whenever it was difficult to justify the admission of a
piece of hearsay evidence at a time when the hearsay theory was
far from being developed in the law of evidence.
It was used as a justification to escape from the strict application
of the hearsay rule.
Res gestae is said to have reference to events speaking by

themselves through the instinctive words and acts of participants
when narrating the events. What is done or said by the
participants under the immediate spur of transaction becomes
part of the transaction.
Rationale:
It is the event that speaks for itself through the spontaneous

words or instinctive words or conduct of the witness and not the
witness for and about the event.
The use of the term res gestae has falledn out of favor and acts
formerly called parts of the res gestae are now designated by
specific names.
The judicial dislike for use of the term res gestae is clearly
expressed in an Amercian case when it considered the phrase as
“accountable for so much confusion that it had best be denied
any place whatever in legal terminology; if it means anything but
an unwillingness to think at all, what it covers cannot be put in
less intelligible terms (U.S. v. Matot).
Requisites:
1. That the entry was made by a public officer, or by

another person specially enjoined by law to do so;
2. That it was made by the public officer in the performance of
his duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law; and
3. That the public officer or other person had sufficient
knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must have been
acquired by him personally or through official information.
Q: What is the rule for such commercial lists and reports of

matters of interest be admissible?
A: They must be made by persons engaged in that occupation
and are generally used and relied upon by them and those lists
and reports are published.
History books, published findings of scientists fall within this

exception if an expert on the subject testifies to the expertise of
the writer or if the court takes judicial notice of such fact .
Requisites:
1. The testimony or depositors of a witness deceased or unable
to testify;
2. The testimony was givem in a former case or proceeding,
judicial or administrative;
3. Involving the same parties
4. Relating to the same matter
5. The adverse party having had and opportunity to cross
examine him.
Opinion
An opinion is an inference or conclusion drawn from facts

observed.
The Opinion Rule
Where the data observed can be exactly and fully

reproduced by the witness so that the witness so that the court
can equally well draw any inference from the witness opinion is
not wanted, and will be excluded
Expert Evidence – is the testimony of one possessing in regard

to a particular subject or department of human activity knowledge
not usually acquired by other person.
Q: Is the court bound by the opinion of an expert such as a

handwriting expert?
A: No. Expert opinion evidence is to be considered or weighed by

the court like any other testimony, in the light of its own general
knowledge and experience upon the subject of inquiry. The
probative force does not lie in a mere statement of his theory or
opinion but rather in the aid that he can render to the courts in
showing the facts which serve as a basis for his criterion and the
reasons upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded (Dizon
v. Tuazon, 2008).
Q: Is the resort to expert witnesses mandatory?

A: No.
NOTE: Experts opinions are not ordinarily conclusive. When faced
with conflicting expert opinions, courts give weight and credence
to that which is more complete, through and scientific (Bacalso v.
Padigos, 2008).
Admissibility of the opinion of an ordinary witness:
1. The identity of a person about whom the witness has

adequate knowledge
2. The handwriting of the person of which the witness has
adequate knowledge
3. The material sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently
acquainted
The impressions of the witness on the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person
Character Evidence
Evidence of the general character of a party or witness
almost has some probative value, but in many situations, the
probative value is slight and potential for prejudice large. In other
circumstances, the balance shift the other way.
Reputation
Reputation depends on the attributes which others believe one to

possess. Character signifies reality while reputation signifies what
is accepted to be reality at present.
REPUTATION CHARACTER REPUTATION

What the person really is What he is supposed to be in
accordance with what people
say he is, and is dependent on
how people perceive a
person to be
Q: Is character of the accused admissible?
A: No. The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is

regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so
that evidence relating thereto is not admissible (People v. Lee,
2002).
RULE 131
Burden of Proof and Presumptions

Onus probandi refers to the obligation of a party to the
litigation to persuade the court that he is entitled to relief.
For the defendant, an affirmative defense is one which is not a

denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff’s, but one which, if
established will be a good defense—i.e., an avoidance of the
claim (Supreme Transliner v. CA, 370 SCRA 41).
Q: To whom the burden of proof lies?
A: It lies with the party who alleges the existence of a fact or

thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.
A mere allegation is not evidence, and he who has the burden of

proving his allegation with the requisite quantum of evidence
(Clado-Reyes v. Limpe, 2008).
NOTE: In civil cases, plaintiffs have the burden of proving the

material allegations of the complaint when those are denied by
the answer, and the defendants have the burden of proving the
material allegations in the answer when they introduce new
matters.
Q: Is it correct to say that the burden of proof solely rests

on the shoulders of the plaintiff?
A: No. The burden of proof, under clear terms of Sec. 1 of Rule

131 is the duty of a party to present evidence not only to
establish a claim but a defense.
What is the basis of the Conclusive presumptions under the Rules

of Court?
A: They are based on the doctrine of estoppel. Under this
doctrine, the person making the representation cannot claim
benefit from the wrong he himself committed.
Q: What is the common term for the first conclusive presumption?
A: Estoppel in pais or estoppel by conduct
The presumption of innocence is founded upon the first principles

of justice. Its purpose is to balance the scales in what could
otherwise be an uneven contest between the lone individual
pitted against the People and all the sources at their command.
The accused must be acquitted and set free if his guilt cannot be
proved beyond the whisper of a doubt. Accordingly, conflicts in
evidence must be resolved upon the theory of innocence rather
than upon a theory of guilt when it is possible to do so (People v.
Alvario, G.R. No. 120437).

RULE 128 General Provisions: 1. Sanctioned by These Rules - It Is Not Evidence When It Is

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RULE 128 General Provisions: 1. Sanctioned by These Rules - It Is Not Evidence When It Is

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RULE 128 General Provisions: 1. Sanctioned by These Rules - It Is Not Evidence When It Is

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RULE 128

Explanatory Note for Rule 128 Section 1:

1. Sanctioned by these rules – It is not evidence when it is

2. Evidence as a means of ascertainment - Evidence is

3. In a judicial proceeding- This contemplate of a jural

4. The truth respecting a matter of fact – it refers to an

Three Types of Truth

1. Factual or moral truth- The truth court seeks to know based

Evidence is the means of proof; proof is the effect of the

The Problem of Ascertaining the Facts

Every evidential question involves the relationship between

Factum Probandum Factum Probans

It generally prevails over Example: Denial and Alibi

Alibi – it is a settled doctrine

Primary vs Secondary evidence

Conclusive vs Prima facie

Conclusive Prima facie

Rules of Evidence Classified.

1. Rule of Probative Policy - To improve the probative value

2. Rules of Extrinsic Policy - These rules seek to exclude

Explanatory Note for Rule 128 Section 2:

Explanatory Note for Rule 128 Section 3:

1. None but facts having rational probative value are

Admissibility is determined by relevancy – an affair of

In the case of W-Red Construction vs Court of Appeals,

1. Multiple Admissibility – Evidence is admissible for several

2. Curative Admissibility or fighting fire with fire – If a

3. Condition admissibility – a fact offered in evidence may

Exclusionary Rule/ The Fruit of Poisonous Tree

Evidence that is quiet clearly direct or primary in its

In the case of Ejercity vs Sandiganbayan, and Tolentino

Exception to the Doctrine of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

1. Inevitable Discovery – when a police officer is not searching

In the case of People vs Abe Valdez y Cruz, the court held

2. Attenuation Doctrine- rule provides that despite the illegality

Evidence excluded by the Constitution. This is an absolute

1. Art. 3 Sec 2 Evidence obtained in violation against

Explanatory Note for Rule 128 Section 4:

Relevancy is the initial and true test of admissibility and in

Component of Relative Evidence

1. Materiality looks to the relation between the propositions

Test of Materiality - Whether the evidence offered relates

Collateral matters are matters other than the facts in issue

Classification of Collateral Matters

Relieved from Presenting Evidence

1. Not subject of judicial

Mandatory Judicial Notice – no motion or hearing is necessary for

What matters are subject to mandatory judicial notice?

1. The existence and territorial extent of states

“Legislative facts” describe the great body of information and

“Adjudicatory facts’ are simply the facts of the particular case

Explanatory Note for Rule 129 Section 2:

A court may take judicial notice of matters:

a. which are of public knowledge, or

b. are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or

c. ought to be known to judges because of their judicial

Requisites of Discretionary Judicial Notice

1. The matter must be one of common knowledge