EVIDENCE PRIMER Incompetent evidence - offered evidence is

not qualified under the rules of testimonial

evidence
BASIC CONCEPTS
Immaterial evidence – the offered evidential
Evidence - It is the means, sanctioned by the fact is directed to prove some probandum
Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial which is not proper in issue. The rule of
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of substantive law and of pleading are what
fact. determines immateriality

2 Kinds of Facts: Conditional Admissibility – evidence is

admissible only in dependence upon other
1. Ultimate fact (factum probandum)- facts. It is received on the express assurance
principal, determinate and constitutive of counsel, when objection is manifested, that
facts upon the existence of which the other facts will be duly presented at a suitable
plaintiff’s cause of action rests. opportunity before the case is closed.
 does not refer to the details of probative
matter or particulars of evidence by which Multiple Admissibility - When a fact is offered
these material elements are to be for one purpose, and is admissible in so far as
established it satisfies all rules applicable to it when
 proposition to be established, necessarily offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy
hypothetical some other rule which would be applicable to
it offered for another purpose does not
2. Evidentiary facts (factum probans) – facts exclude it.
which are necessary for the determination
of the ultimate facts Curative Admissibility - A party has the right to
 Premises upon which conclusions of introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf
ultimate facts are based. where the court has admitted the same kind of
 Brought forward as a reality to convince evidence adduced by the adverse party. This
the tribunal that the factum probandum is is to prevent manifest injustice.
also real
Collateral Matters – matters other than the
Factum probandum Factum probans facts in issue and which are offered as a basis
"ultimate facts" "intermediate facts" merely for inference as to the existence or
Proposition to be Material evidencing non-existence of the facts in issue.
established the proposition
Hypothetical Existent 2 axioms of admissibility
1. Only those facts which have rational
Corroborative evidence - It is additional probative value are admissibile
evidence of a different kind and character 2. All facts having rational probative value are
tending to prove the same point. admissibile unless prohibited by some specific
rule.
Cumulative evidence - It is additional evidence
of the same kind and character tending to
prove the same proposition. INSTANCES WHEN PROOF CAN BE
DISPENSED WITH
Irrelevant evidence - offered piece of evidence
has no probative value Instances when proofs can be dispensed with:
1. Res ipsa loquitur
Inadmissible evidence - offered evidence is 2. Presumptions
excluded by some rule of evidence 3. Judicial notice
4. Judicial admissions
Kinds of presumptions: damages based on facts of the earlier case
1. Conclusive - which the law does not allow “as adopted by reference.”
to be controverted HELD : As a general rule, courts are not
2. Disputable - which are satisfactory if authorized to take judicial notice, in
uncontradicted, but which may be adjudication of cases pending before them, of
contradicted and overcome by other evidence the contents of the records of other cases.
Exception > in the absence of objection, with
Judicial Notice – cognizance of certain facts the knowledge of the opposing party, or at the
by the court w/o proof because they are facts, request or with the consent of the parties,
which, by common experience, are of records of previous case may be admitted as
universal knowledge among intelligent part of the present case.
persons w/in a country or community
State Prosecutors v Muro
Requisites of Judicial notice Facts: Judge dismissed 11 cases against Mrs.
1. matter of common knowledge Marcos for violation of CB Circular 960 or the
2. well & authoritatively settled and not CB Foreign Exchange Restrictions. The
doubted or uncertain dismissal was based solely on newspaper
3. known to be w/in the limits of jurisdiction of reports concerning the announcement of the
the court president of the Philippines of the lifting of all
foreign exchange restrictions as embodied in
Matters that are judicially noticed (mandatory) the circular. Judge said that the
1. existence & territorial extent of states announcement had the effect of repealing CB
2. forms of gov’t and symbols of nationality 960.
3. law of nations HELD: Matters of judicial notice have 3
4. admiralty & maritime courts of the world & requisites: matter of common knowledge; it
their seals must be authoritatively settled; and known to
5. political constitution & history of the be w/in the limits of jurisdiction of the court.
Philippines Judicial notice is not equivalent to judicial
6. laws of nature knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of
7. measure of time the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the
8. geographical divisions and political history court, and he is not authorized to make his
of the world individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or
9. facts which are of public knowledge professionally known, the basis of his action.
10. facts which are capable of unquestionable Judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute
demonstration before it becomes effective. A law not yet in
11. facts which ought to be known to judges force and hence still inexistent, cannot be of
because of their judicial functions common knowledge capable of
unquestionable demonstration.
Discretionary Judicial Notice
1. matters of pubic knowledge Judicial Admission – admission, verbal or
2. capable of unquestionable demonstration written, made by a party in the course of the
3. ought to be known to judges because of proceedings in the same case; does not
their judicial functions require proof.

Occidental Land Transportation v CA Atillo v CA

FACTS : A Ford Fiera and a Carina FACTS : Petitioner filed a collection case
passenger bus collided. The driver of the against L Petitioner claims that L made a
Ford died and 2 passengers were injured. judicial admission of his personal liability in
The owner of the bus sued the owner of the the answer.
Ford. CFI found the driver of the bus HELD : Petitioner took the admissions out of
negligent. Nine years later, in a separate civil context. The general rule is that judicial
case, the CFI ordered the bus owner to pay admissions are conclusive upon the party
making it and does not require proof.
Exception to the rule is when there is palpable  Merely assures presentation of the original
mistake or when no such admission was in document and bars non-original
fact made. “Such” means that the statement is documents, etc.. BUT not evidence
not in the sense in which the admission is aliunde or parol evidence
made to appear.  Refers only to the factum probandum but
not to the interpretation of the document.
 Original must be presented first before
RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY evidence aliunde may be presented

Object Evidence  Secondary Evidence- that which shows

that better or primary evidence exists as to
Object (Real) Evidence – that which is the proof of the fact in question.
addressed directly to the sense of the court  It is that class of evidence which is
without the intervention of a witness, as by relevant to the fact in issue, it being
actual sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch. first shown that the primary evidence
A.K.A autoptic proference. of the fact is not obtainable

When Secondary Evidence is Admissible

Documentary Evidence 1. original has been lost or destroyed
2. prove the existence or execution of the
Documentary Evidence – documents as original
evidence consist of writings or any material 3. prove the cause of the unavailability of the
containing letters, words, numbers, figures, original, is not due to the bad faith of the
symbols or other modes of written offeror.
expressions offered as proof of their contents
3 Kinds of Secondary Evidence that may be
Original of a document presented:
1. the contents of which are the subject of 1. copy of the writing
the inquiry 2. recital of its contents in some authentic
2. when a document is in two or more copies document
executed at or about the same time with 3. recollection of witnesses in the order
identical contents stated
3. when an entry is repeated in the regular
course of the business  Authentic document – merely means that
the document should be genuine. It need
Exceptions to the rule that only original not be a public document
documents may be admissible:
1. when the original has been lost or Parol Evidence Rule
destroyed  Forbids any addition to or contradiction of
2. when the original is in the custody or the terms of a written instrument by
control of the party against whom it is testimony purporting to show that, at or
offered, and the latter fails to produce it before the signing, of the document, other
3. when the original is a public record in the or different terms were orally agreed upon
custody of a public officer or is recorded in by the parties
a public office
4. when the original consists of numerous Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule
accounts or cannot be examined by the (must be alleged in the pleadings) [F-I-V-E]
court without great loss of time 1. Failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent & agreement of the
Best Evidence Rule parties
 only original of the document is 2. Intrinsic ambiguity
admissible. 3. Validity of the written agreement
4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the copies evidence to
parties prove contents;
prior/
To justify the reformation of a written contempora-
instrument upon the ground of mistake, the neous with the
concurrence of three things is necessary: contract
1. mistake should be one of fact What is Only originals
2. mistake should be mutual or common to included
both parties to the instrument Exceptio Lost or Ambiguity;
3. mistake should be alleged and proved by ns destroyed; Does not
clear and convincing evidence in the express the
possession of true intent of
2 kinds of ambiguities the adverse the parties;
1. patent (extrinsic) where the instrument on party; or Validity is in
its face is unintelligible in the question;
2. latent (intrinsic) where the words of the possession of Subsequent
instrument are clear but their application to a public changes
the circumstances is doubtful officer
Procedur Existence Exception must
 the rule permits parol evidence to explain e Execution be put in issue
an intrinsic ambiguity Loss in the
Contents complaint or
Rules governing admissibility of parol *objection answer ( as an
evidence to explain ambiguity should be affirmative
1. where the instrument itself seems clear made ASAP defense)
and certain on its face, and the ambiguity Purpose To compel To preserve
arises from some extrinsic or collateral litigants to agreements
matter, the ambiguity may be helped by present only
parol evidence (latent ambiguity) the originals. Draft the
2. where the ambiguity consists in the use of contract
equivocal words designing the person or For the carefully
subject-matter, parol evidence of collateral parties to
or extrinsic matter may be introduced for always keep Go into the
the purpose of aiding the court in arriving the originals interpretation
at the meaning of the language used of the contents
(intermediate ambiguity) of the contract
3. where the ambiguity is such that a perusal Issue Contents of No issue as to
of the instrument shows plainly that the writing the contents of
something more must be added before the the writing
reader can determine what of several Secondary The purpose of
things is meant, the rule is inflexible that evidence is the offer of
parol evidence cannot be admitted to offered to parol evidence
supply the deficiency (patent ambiguity) prove the is to change,
contents of a vary, modify,
Difference between best evidence rule and writing which qualify or
parol evidence rule is not allowed contradict the
Best Parol Evidence unless the terms of a
Evidence case falls complete
Docume All kinds Agreements, under any of written
nts contracts, wills the agreement
exceptions which is not
What is Secondary Any oral, allowed unless
excluded evidence; written the case falls
 under any of authority, official bodies and tribunals,
the exceptions and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;

Mactan Cebu Int’l Airport Authority v CA (263 Note: These documents are evidenced
SCRA 736) by either:
Facts : In 1949, the officers of the National
Airport Corporation informed the owners of (1) official publication thereof; or
various lots surrounding Lahug Airport that the
government will purchase their lands or (2) a copy attested by the officer
expropriate it. They assured the owners that having the legal custody of the
the properties will be returned when it is no record, or by his deputy. The
longer being used by the airport. O hesitantly attestation must state, in
sold her lot and she was reassured that it will substance, that the copy is a
be returned. V, before signing the deed of correct copy of the original copy,
sale, asked for a rider or certification that the or a specific part thereof, and must
land will be returned to him. The rider was be under the official seal of the
issued. Later, O’s grandchildren wanted to attesting officer or his court.
repurchase their grandmother’s property.
Their request on the ground that the deed of If the record is not kept in the
sale to O did not contain any condition relating Philippines, in addition to the foregoing
to the right to repurchase (no rider like that of requirements, there must be a
V.) certificate that such officer has the
Held : The Os can repurchase. The right to custody.
repurchase can be sufficiently established by
parol evidence. Where a parol (b) Documents acknowledged before a
contemporaneous agreement was the moving notary public, except last wills and
cause of the written contract, and it appears testaments; and
that the written contract was executed on the
faith of the parol contract or representation, Note: Notarial documents may be
such evidence is admissible. Proof is presented in evidence without further
admissible if any collateral parol agreement proof. The certificate of
that is not consistent with the terms of the acknowledgement is prima facie
written contract although it may relate to the evidence of the execution of the
same subject matter. The rule excluding parol instrument or document involved.
evidence to vary or contradict a writing does
not extend so far as to preclude the admission (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines,
of existing evidence to show prior or of private documents required by law
contemporaneous collateral parol agreements to be entered therein.
between the parties, but such evidence may
be received regardless of WON the written Note: These documents may be
agreement contains any reference to such proved by:
collateral agreement and WON the action is at
law or equity. Besides the petitioner made no (a) the original record, or
objection when the respondent introduced
evidence to show the right to repurchase. (b) a copy thereof attested by the
legal custodian of the record, with
Classes of Documents an appropriate certificate that such
officer has the custody.
(1) Public, consisting of:
(2) Private, consisting of all other writings.
(a) The written official acts, or records of
the official acts of the sovereign
 Note: Before any private document What explanations are satisfactory so as to
offered as authentic is received in make the altered document admissible in
evidence, its due execution and evidence?
authenticity must be proved either by:
The producing party must show that the
(1) Anyone who saw the document alteration was:
executed or written; or
(1) made by another;
(2) Evidence of the genuineness of the (2) made without his (the producing party’s)
signature or handwriting of the maker. concurrence;
(3) made with the consent of the parties
Any other private document need only be affected by it;
identified as that which it is claimed to be. (4) otherwise properly or innocently made; or
(5) such that it did not change the meaning or
language of the instrument.
A judicial record may be impeached by
evidence of: Interpretation of Documents
(1) Want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial  Construction is the process or the art of
officer; determining the sense, real meaning, or
(2) Collusion between the parties; or proper explanation of obscure or
(3) Fraud in the party offering the record, in ambiguous terms or provisions in a
respect to the proceedings statute, written instrument or oral
agreement, or the application of such
Documents that do not need to be subject to the case in question
authenticated:  Interpretation is the art or process of
(1) Public documents; discovering and expounding the meaning
(2) Notarial documents; of a statute, will, contract or other written
(3) Ancient documents document

Ancient Document Rule - Where a private Rules in the interpretation of documents

document is: (1) legal meaning the writing bears in the
(1) more than 30 years old, place of its execution;
(2) is produced from a custody in which it (2) all provisions must be given effect;
would naturally be found if genuine, and (3) intention of the parties must be pursued;
(3) is unblemished by any alterations or (4) a particular intent will control a general
circumstances of suspicion intent inconsistent with it;
no other evidence of its authenticity need be (5) circumstances of execution may be
given. (Rule 132, Sec. 21) shown;
(6) terms are presumed to have been used in
In what Instances must alterations in their primary and general acceptation; but
documents be accounted for by the producing evidence is admissible to show an
party? otherwise peculiar signification;
(7) written words control printed;
(1) The document being produced as genuine (8) experts & interpreters can be used to
has been altered; explain characters difficult to be
(2) The alteration appears to have been done deciphered or language not understood by
after the execution of the document; the court;
(3) The alteration appears to have been in a (9) when terms were intended in different
part material to the question in dispute. senses, that sense is to prevail against
either party in which he supposed the
other understood it;
(10) when different constructions are
otherwise equally proper, the one most
favorable to the party in whose favor the testimony
provision was made will be taken; ?
(11) construction in favor of natural right;
(12) instrument may be construed according Who can The affected The other
to usage invoke spouse spouse

Operability Ceases upon Continues

Testimonial Evidence of the rule death of even after the
either termination of
GENERAL RULE: The following are not spouse, or the marriage.
grounds for disqualification: termination
of the
(1) Religious belief; marriage.
(2) Political belief;
(3) Interest in the outcome of the
case; and Privileged Communications
(4) Conviction of a crime
1. Marital Confidential communication
Exception: When provided for by law. Requisites:
a. spouses are legally married
Grounds for disqualification enumerated in the b. privilege is claims with regard to a
Rules on Evidence: communication, oral or written, made
Disqualification by reason of: during the marriage
(1) Mental incapacity c. said communication was made
(2) Immaturity confidentially
(3) Marriage d. action or proceeding where the privilege is
(4) Death or insanity of adverse party claimed is not by one against the other
(5) Privileged communication
3. Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
Distinguish between the marital Requisites:
disqualification rule and the privileged marital a. legal advice of any kind is sought
communication rule. b. from a professional legal adviser in his
capacity as such
Marital Privileged c. the communications relating to that
Disqualificati Marital purpose
on Disqualification d. made in confidence
e. by the client
Extent of Total. All Only f. are at his instance permanently protected
prohibition testimony, confidential g. from disclosure by himself or by the legal
whether communication adviser
adverse or . h. except that the protection may be waived
not,
regardless of 4. Physicians and clients
source. Requisites:
a. civil case
Should YES. Not b. person against whom the privilege is
either necessarily. claimed is one duly authorized to practice
spouse be medicine, surgery or obstetrics
a party? c. such information was acquired while he
was attending to the patient in his
Marriage YES. Not professional capacity
subsisting necessarily. d. the information was necessary to enable
at time of him to act in that capacity, and if
 disclosed, shall blacken the reputation of d. identical confession
the patient e. corroborated confession
f. confession by conspirator (after
5. Priest and penitent conspiracy has been shown & proven)
Requisites:
a. clergyman or priest and a penitent Self-serving declaration - a declaration
b. confession of a penitential character wherein:
c. made to the priest in his professional (1) the testimony is favorable to the
character declarant;
d. confession is sanctioned by the church to (2) it is made extrajudicially; and
which the priest or religious officer belongs (3) it is made in anticipation of litigation.

6. Public officers Self-serving declarations are not admissible.

Requisites:
a. confidential communication Requisites for the admissibility of an
b. made to or obtained by a public officer admission:
c. obtained in the exercise of his public (1) must involve matters of fact and not of
function law;
d. disclosure of the communication would be (2) must be categorical and definite;
detrimental to the public interest (3) must be knowingly and voluntarily
made;
Parental and Filial privilege - No person may (4) must be adverse to the admitter’s
be compelled to testify against his parents, interest
other direct ascendants, children, or other
direct descendants. Confession - It is the declaration of an
Notes: accused acknowledging his guilt of the
 This provision does not apply to spouses. offense charged, or of any offense necessarily
 This provision means that you may testify included therein.
if you want, but you may not be compelled
to testify. Differentiate an admission from a confession.
 This provision is subject to the
qualification in Sec. 215 of the Family Admission Confession
Code, i.e. a descendant may be
compelled to testify against parents and Definition Statement of Declaration
fact which does acknowledging
grandparents IF the testimony is
not involve an one’s guilt of the
indispensable in a crime against the acknowledge- offense charged
descendant or by one parent against the ment of guilt or
other. liability

Admissions and Confessions Form May be express Must be express

or tacit
Admission - It is an act, declaration or
omission as to a relevant fact. It may be given Made by Party or 3rd Party himself
by a party (in which case Rule 130, Sec. 26 person
will be applicable) or by a third-party.
Cases in Both criminal Usually criminal
which and civil cases cases
Gen. Rule: Confessions of a defendant made applicabl
to witnesses are admissible against him, but e
are inadmissible against his co-defendant
Exception:
a. confessions on the stand
b. confessions not objected to
c. adopted confession
 Exceptions:
Differentiate an admission and confession in
criminal cases. (1) Interlocking confessions, i.e. extrajudicial
confessions independently made without
Admission Confession collusion which are identical with each
other in their material respects and
Definition Statement by Acknowledgmen
the accused, t in express confirmatory of the other (People v.
direct or implied, terms by a party Encipido);
of facts pertinent in a criminal
to the issue and case of his guilt (2) If the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in
tending, in of the crime or adopted said confession by not
connection with charged questioning its truthfulness (People v.
proof of other Orenciada);
facts, to prove
his guilt (3) Where the accused admitted the facts
stated by the confessant after being
Sufficienc Insufficient. Sufficient
y to Tends only to
apprised of such confession (People v.
autho- establish the Narciso);
rize a ultimate fact of
convictio guilt. (4) If the accused are charged as co-
n conspirators of the crime which was
confessed by one of the accused and said
Differentiate the effects of judicial and confession is used only as corroborative
extrajudicial confessions. evidence (People v. Linde);

A judicial confession is sufficient in itself to (5) Where the confession is used as

sustain a conviction, even in capital offenses. circumstantial evidence to show the
On the other hand, an extrajudicial confession probability of participation by the co-
is insufficient in itself to sustain a conviction. conspirator (People v. Condemena);
It must be corroborated by evidence of the
corpus delicti (6) Where the confessant testified for his co-
defendant (People v. Villanueva);
Requisites for the admissibility of extrajudicial
confessions? (7) Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial
confession is corroborated by other
(1) Must involve an express and categorical evidence of record (People v. Paz)
acknowledgment of guilt (US v. Corales);
(2) The facts admitted must be constitutive of
a criminal offense (US v. Flores); Rules on offer of compromise
(3) Must have been given voluntarily (People
v. Nishishima); Civil cases: Not admission of liability; not
(4) Must have been made intelligently (Bilaan admissible in evidence against
v. Cusi) offeror
(5) Must have been made with the assistance Criminal cases: Admissible against
of competent and independent counsel accused as implied admission
(Art III, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution) of guilt
Exceptions:
Rules governing extrajudicial confessions: (1) Quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence)
General Rule: :The extrajudicial confession of (2) Those offenses allowed by law to
an accused is binding only upon himself and be compromised (e.g., Sec. 204,
is not admissible against his co-accused. NIRC of 1977)
The following are not admissions of liability or (3) Statement must refer to a matter affecting
guilt and are therefore not admissible in his right;
evidence: (4) Facts were within the knowledge of the
party;
(1) Plea of guilty later withdrawn; (5) Facts admitted or the inference to be
(2) Unaccepted offer of plea of guilty drawn from his silence would be material
to a lesser offense; to the issue (Regalado)
(3) Offer to pay or payment of
medical, hospital or other Distinguish :
expenses occasioned by an injury Self-serving Declaration against
declaration interest
Not admissible Admissible
res inter alios acta rule - the rights of a party since introduction notwithstanding its
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or would open door to hearsay character
omission of another (i.e. a non-party), except frauds and perjuries
in the following instances:
Admission Declaration against
1. by partner, agent or other person jointly interest
interested with the party Not necessarily Always a declaration
Requisites: against the interest against self-interest
a. the partnership, agency or joint interest is of person who made
proven by evidence other than the act or the admission
declaration sought to be admitted May be used Refers to declaration
b. the admission is within the scope of the although person made by a deceased
partnership, agency or joint interest making the person
c. admission was made while the agency, admission is still
p’ship or joint interest was in existence alive
May be used only Admissible against
2. by conspirator against the admitter 3rd persons
Requisites: & those identified
a. conspiracy is first proved by evidence with him in legal
other than the admission itself interest
b. admission relates to the common object
c. that it has been made while the declarant Hearsay Evidence rule - A witness can testify
was engaged in carrying out the only to those facts which he knows of his
conspiracy personal knowledge.
3. by privies Independently relevant statement - It is a
Requisites: statement whose probative value is
1. Relation of privity between party and independent of its truth or falsity. The mere
declarant; fact of its utterance is relevant,
2. Admission was made by the declarant as
predecessor-in-interest, while holding title to 2 kinds of independently relevant statements:
the property; (1) Statements which are the very facts in
3. The admission was in relation to said issue;
property. (2) Statements which are circumstantial
evidence of the facts in issue (Francisco)
Requisites for admission by silence:
(1) Hearing and understanding of the Reasons for Excluding Hearsay
statement by the party; 1. irresponsibility of the original declarant
(2) Opportunity and necessity of denying the 2. depreciation of truth in the process of
statements; repetition
3. opportunities for fraud would open
4. tendency of such evidence to protect legal c. it existed ante litem motam
inquiries, and encourage the substitution
of weaker for stronger proofs. 6. Part of the res gestae
a. spontaneous exclamations
Exceptions to Hearsay Rule Requisites:
1. Dying declaration 1) the principal fact, the res gestae, must be
Requisites: a startling occurrence
a. death is imminent 2) statements must have been made before
b. declarant is conscious of his impending the declarant had time to contrive or
death devise
c. declaration refers to material facts which 3) statements must concern the occurrence
concern the identity of the deceased or the in question and its immediately attending
accused, the cause & circumstances of circumstances
the killing
d. declarant would be competent to testify b. Contemporaneous statements or verbal
had he survived acts
e. any case wherein the subject is his death Requisites:
1) conduct characterized by the words must
2. Declaration against interest be independently material to the issue
Requisites: 2) conduct must be equivocal
a. declarant would not be available to testify 3) words must aid in giving legal significance
(dead, mentally incapacitated incompetent to the conduct
etc..) 4) words must accompany the conduct
b. declaration must concern a fact cognizable
by declarant Spontaneous Contemporaneous
c. circumstances must render it improbable exclamations or verbal act
that a motive to falsify existed Res gestae is the Res gestae is the
startling occurrence equivocal act
3. Act or declaration against pedigree Exclamation may be Verbal act must be
Requisites: prior to, contemporaneous
a. declarant is dead or unable to testify simultaneous with or with or must
b. pedigree must be in issue subsequent to the accompany the
c. declarant must be a relative of the person startling occurrence equivocal act
whose pedigree is in question 7. entries in the course of business
d. declaration must be made before the Requisites:
controversy occurred – ante-litem motam a. entrant made the entries in his
4. family reputation or tradition regarding professional capacity or in the
pedigree performance of a duty
Requisites: b. entrant is dead, outside of the Phils. or
a. tradition or reputation is one existing in the unable to testify
family c. entries were made in the ordinary course
b. reputation or tradition was formed ante- of business or duty
litem motam d. entries were made at or near the time of
c. witness testifying to the reputation or the transaction to which it relates
tradition is a member of the family e. entrant was in a position to know the facts
stated in the entry
5. Common reputation f. there must be more than one entry
Requisites:
a. that the matter to which the reputation 8. Entries in official records
refers to is of public or general interest and Requisites:
more than 30 years old a. entry was made by a public officer or by
b. that the reputation is one formed in the another person specially enjoined by law
community interested to do so
b. made in the performance of his duties or
by another person in the performance of a
duty specially enjoined by law Rules on Character Evidence
c. the public officer or the other person had
sufficient knowledge of the facts by him GENERAL RULE: Not admissible.
stated, acquired by him either personally
or thru official channels connected with the Exceptions:
exercise of his public functions
(a) In criminal cases:
9. Commercial lists and the like
(1) Accused may prove his good moral
10. Learned treatises character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense
11. Testimony or deposition at a former charged.
proceeding
Requisites: (2) Prosecution may only prove
a. testimony was rendered in a former case accused’s bad moral character
b. identity of parties pertinent to the moral trait involved
c. identity of subject matter in the offense charged during
d. adverse party had opportunity to cross- rebuttal.
examine the witness
e. witness is dead, outside of the Phils., pr (3) The good or bad moral character of
unable to testify in the subsequent trial the offended party may be proved if
it tends to establish in any
The Opinion Rule reasonable degree the probability
or improbability of the offense
The opinion of a witness is not admissible, charged.
except in the following cases:
(b) In civil cases
(1) On a matter requiring special knowledge,
skill, experience or training which he Evidence of the moral character of a
possesses, that is, when he is an expert party is admissible only when pertinent
thereon; to the issue of character involved in the
case.
(2) Regarding the identity or the handwriting
of a person, when he has knowledge of (c) Evidence of a witness’ good moral
the person or handwriting, whether he is character is admissible only once such
an ordinary or expert witness; character has been impeached.

(3) On the mental sanity of a person, if the

witness is sufficiently acquainted with the Burden of Proof and Presumptions
former or if the latter is an expert
witness;  matters which need not be proved by a
party to an action are:
1. allegations contained in the complaint or
(4) On the emotion, behavior, condition or answer immaterial to the issues
appearance of a person which he has 2. facts which are admitted or which are not
observed; and denied in the answer, provided they have
been sufficiently alleged
(5) On ordinary matters known to all men of 3. those which are the subject of an agreed
common perception, such as the value of statement of facts between parties, as
ordinary household articles (Galian v. well as those admitted by the party in the
State Assurance Co., Ltd.)
 course of the proceedings in the same (3) By evidence that he has made at other
case times statements inconsistent with his
4. those subject to judicial notice present testimony (a.k.a. “prior
5. facts which are legally presumed inconsistent statements”)
6. facts peculiarly w/in the knowledge of the
opposite party Laying the predicate -

What are the rules on impeachment of (a) Confronting the witness with the
witnesses? prior inconsistent statements with
the circumstances under which they
GENERAL RULE: The party producing a were made;
witness is not allowed to impeach his
credibility. (b) Asking him whether he made such
statements; and
Exceptions:
(c) Giving him a chance to explain the
(1) Unwilling or hostile witness; inconsistency. (Rule 132, Sec. 13)

A witness may be considered as A witness may not be impeached by

unwilling or hostile only if so evidence of particular wrongful acts.
declared by the court upon Except that it may be shown by the
adequate showing of: examination of the witness, or the
record of the judgment, that he has
(a) his adverse interest, been convicted of an offense.
(b) unjustified reluctance to
testify; or Leading question - It is a question which
(c) his having misled the party suggests to the witness the answer which the
into calling him to the examining party desires. It is not allowed,
witness stand. (Rule 132, except:
Sec. 12)
1. On cross-examination;
(2) Witness who is an adverse party; 2. On preliminary matters;
3. When there is difficulty is getting direct and
(3) Officer, director, or managing intelligible answers from a witness who is
agent of a public or private ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of
corporation or of a partnership or feeble-mind, or a deaf-mute
association which is an adverse 4. Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
party. 5. Of a witness who is an adverse party or an
officer, director, or managing agent of a public
In these instances, such witnesses may be or private corporation or of a partnership or
impeached by the party presenting him in association which is an adverse party
all respects as if he had been called by the
adverse party, except by evidence of his Misleading question - A misleading question is
bad character. one which assumes as true a fact not yet
testified to by the witness, or contrary to that
How may an adverse party’s witness be which he has previously stated. It is not
impeached? allowed.

(1) By contradictory evidence; What are the rights of a witness?

(2) By evidence that his general reputation (1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper,
for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad; or insulting questions, and from harsh or
insulting demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the OFFER AND OBJECTION
interests of justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to Offer of evidence. - The court shall consider
matters pertinent to the issue; no evidence which has not been formally
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to offered. The purpose for which the evidence is
subject him to a penalty for an offense offered must be specified.
unless otherwise provided by law; or
When to make offer:
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to Testimony of a witness - at the time the
degrade his reputation, unless it be to the witness is called to testify.
very fact at issue or to a fact from which Documentary and object evidence - after the
the fact in issue would be presumed. But presentation of a party's testimonial evidence.
a witness must answer to the fact of his Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed
previous final conviction for an offense. by the court to be done in writing.

Exceptions to the rule against repetition of Objections:

objections - Objection to evidence offered orally must be
1. where the question has not been made immediately after the offer is made.
answered, it is necessary to repeat the - Objection to a question propounded in the
objection when the evidence is again course of the oral examination of a witness
offered or the question again asked shall be made as soon as the grounds
2. evidence of the same kind as that therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
previously admitted over objection - An offer of evidence in writing shall be
3. incompetency is shown later objected to within three (3) days after notice of
4. objection refers to preliminary question it the offer unless a different period is allowed
must be repeated when the same question by the court.
is again asked during the introduction of - The grounds for the objections must be
actual evidence specified.
5. objection to evidence was sustained but
reoffered at a later stage of the trial When repetition of objection unnecessary. -
6. evidence is admitted on condition that its When it becomes reasonably apparent in the
competency or relevance be shown by course of the examination that the questions
further evidence and the condition is not asked are of the same class as those to which
fulfilled, the objection formerly interposed objection has been made (whether sustained
must be repeated or a motion to strike out or overruled), it shall not be necessary to
the evidence must be made repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the
7. where the court reserves the ruling on adverse party to record his continuing
objection, the objecting party must request objection to such class of questions.
a ruling or repeat the objection
Ruling:
Distinction between presumption of innocence
and reasonable doubt The ruling of the court must be given
Presumption of Reasonable Doubt immediately after the objection is made,
Innocence unless the court desires to take a reasonable
Conclusion drawn by Condition of mind time to inform itself on the question presented;
law in favor of produced by proof but the ruling shall always be made during the
citizens resulting from trial and at such time as will give the party
evidence in the case against whom it is made an opportunity to
Evidence introduced Result of insufficient meet the situation presented by the ruling.
by law to be proof
considered by the The reason for sustaining or overruling an
court objection need not be stated. If the objection
is based on two or more grounds, a ruling
sustaining the objection on one or some of
them must specify the ground or grounds An extrajudicial confession made by an
relied upon. accused, shall not be sufficient ground for
conviction - unless corroborated by evidence
Striking out answer. - Should a witness of corpus delicti.
answer the question before the adverse party
had the opportunity to voice fully its objection Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
to the same, and such objection is found to be conviction if:
meritorious, the court shall sustain the (a) There is more than one circumstance;
objection and order the answer given to be (b) The facts from which the inferences
stricken off the record. are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the
On motion, the court may also order the circumstances' is such as to produce a
striking out of answers which are incompetent, conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
Substantial evidence - that amount of relevant
Tender of excluded evidence: evidence which a reasonable mind might
- If documents or things offered are excluded accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
by the court, the offeror may have the same
attached to or made part of the record. Power of the court to stop further evidence. -
- If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror The court may stop the introduction of further
may state for the record the name and other testimony upon any particular point when the
personal circumstances of the witness and the evidence upon it is already so full that more
substance of the proposed testimony. witnesses to the same point cannot be
reasonably expected to be additionally
persuasive. But this power should be
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence exercised with caution.

Preponderance of evidence - In determining Evidence on motion. - When a motion is

where the preponderance or superior weight based on facts not appearing of record the
of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may hear the matter on affidavits or
court may consider all the facts and depositions presented by the respective
circumstances of the case, the witnesses' parties, but the court may direct that the
manner of testifying, their intelligence, their matter be heard wholly or partly on oral
means and opportunity of knowing the facts to testimony or depositions.
which they are testifying, the nature of the
facts to which they testify, the probability or
improbability of their testimony, their interest
or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may legitimately
appear upon the trial. The court may also
consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the
greater number.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt - does not

mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or
that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind.