Midterms Evidence Alar As Notes

TALACTAC EVIDENCE 3DD JUDGE ALARAS NOTES
EVIDENCE
SECTION 1. Evidence Defined.— Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these [R]ules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact. (1)
- exists, either in the material world as matter or that of the mind

ADVERSARIAL INQUISITORIAL - not limited to tangible or perceptible by the sense
- interest of the parties - judge investigates - may be INVISIBLE: thoughts, intentions, desires, MOTIVE
- parties offer the issue and produce the evidence the case o when conceived as existing or as being true = FACT
- evidence will compete with each other for
admission as fact Civil Procedure
- court takes no part in the production of evidence - Pleading must aver sufficient ultimate facts rather than evidentiary facts
unless assistance is requested
ULTIMATE FACTS
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE, Section 7: institutionalized and introduced the limited - essential fact which constitute cause of action
use of the inquisitorial system o cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of a cause of
SECTION 7. Examination of the Witness on His Judicial Affidavit. — The adverse party shall action insufficient
have the right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits attached - principal, determinative, constitutive facts upon the existence of which the
to the same. The party who presents the witness may also examine him as on re-direct. In cause of action rests
every case, the court shall take active part in examining the witness to determine his credibility - important and substantial facts
as well as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers that it needs for resolving the
o either directly form the basis of the primary right and duty or
issues.
o which directly makeup the wrongful acts or omissions (of the
defendant)
o does not refer to details of probative matter or particulars of evidence
EVIDENCE PROOF which establish the matter elements
- medium of proof or the means sanctioned - not the evidence itself - will be tested during the trial by evidentiary facts
by rules in ascertaining the truth - there is proof only because of
respecting a matter of fact evidence INCIDENTAL FACTS: no evidentiary significance
- means of proving a fact - effect or result of evidence
- to resolve a question of fact o probative effect of EVIDENTIARY FACTS
o even if parties agree to admit or evidence - facts necessary for the determination of the ultimate facts
stipulate on the fact, the court o conviction or - premises upon which conclusions of ultimate facts are based
has the discretion to admit or persuasion of the
refuse its admission as fact mind resulting from ARGUMENT EVIDENCE
o when there is no factual issues to a consideration of - piercing together of elemental fact - process or presenting assumed fact
be resolved, no evidence needs evidence for a suggested conclusion
to be offered - effort to establish belief by a force - establish the truth by the use of
o question of law of evidence preceptive and reasoning faculties
o judgment on the pleadings
▪ summary judgment QUESTION OF FACT QUESTION OF LAW
▪ dismissal of action - when the doubt or controversy - when a doubt or difference arise as to
• Sec. 2(f) Rule arises as to the truth or falsity of what the law is on a certain state of
18 the alleged facts facts, and the question does not call
Ex: query necessarily solicits for an examination of the probative
FACTUM PROBANDUM FACTUM PROBANS calibration of the whole evidence value of the evidence presented by
- ultimate fact sought to be - evidentiary fact by which factum considering most of 1) credibility of the party-litigants
established probandum to be establish witness, 2) their relation to each other
and as a whole, 3) probabilities of the
FACT situation
1
- when there is no dispute as to the facts, the question whether the conclusion drawn the best
from therefrom is correct or not is a question of law evidence
8. EXPERT - testimony of one possession knowledge in
CONCLUSION OF FACT CONCLUSION OF LAW regard to a particular subject or department of
- inference drawn from - application of the artificial rules of law to facts human activity, knowledge not usually acquired
subordinated or pleaded by other person
evidentiary facts - legal inference on a question of law made as 9. PRIMA FACIE - evidence which standing alone, unexplained or
a result of a factual showing where no further unconverted, it is sufficient to maintain the
evidence is required proposition affirmed
- proposition not arrived at by any process of - is such as, the judgment of law is sufficient to
natural reasoning from a fact or combination establish the fact and if not rebutted, remains
insufficient for the purpose
KINDS OF EVIDENCE: 10. CONCLUSIVE - incontrovertible
1. DIRECT - proves the existence or non-existence of the fact
in issue direct
2. INDIRECT - Circumstantial Evidence
- consists of the inferences drawn from facts know
3. RELEVANT - evidence having any value in reason as tending
to prove any matter provable in an action
- when it has a tendency in reason to establish the
probability or improbability of a fact in issue
4. MATERIAL - directed to prove a fact in issue as determined
by the rules of substantive law and pleading
5. COMPETENT - when it is not excluded by law in a particular case
6. REBUTTING - given to repel, counteract or disprove facts given
the evidence
7. PRELIMINARY/BEST PRELIMINARY/BEST SECONDARY
& SECONDARY - law regards as affording - inferior; indicates
the greatest certainty of the existence of
the fact in question more original
- most certainty exhibits sources of
the fact in question information
- not, however, - inferior to
necessarily a rule of primary
exclusion evidence, evidence and
and should be permitted by law
distinguished only when the
secondary evidence better evidence
rules is not available
- but merely
affects the
weight of
evidence from
SECTION 2. Scope.— The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these [R]ules.
(2)
2
Applicability
- judicial proceedings
- same in all courts and in all trials and hearings except as otherwise provided by
law or the Rules of Court
Not apply to (except by analogy or in suppletory character and whenever practicable

and convenient):
- election
- land registration
- cadastral
- naturalization
- insolvency
- labor cases
- administrative bodies
- financial rehabilitation and insolvency act
- quasi-judicial bodies
SECTION 3. Admissibility of Evidence.— Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the Constitution,the law or these Rules. (3a)
AXIOMS OF ADMISSIBILITY Whether evidence has any weight is dependent upon the court
Admissibility of None but facts having rational probative value are
Relevancy admissible RELEVANCY COMPENTENCY
Admissibility of All facts having rational probative value are admissible - anchored on logic, human - determined by the applicable rules that
Competency when some rule forbids experience, common sense, call for repudiation of evidence due to
satisfaction of auxiliary test and legal proscription
ADMISSIBLE INADMISSIBLE privileges
- evidence which are considered by - irrelevant to the issue and excluded - have some relation to the fact in - not excluded by law
the court for the purpose of by the law issue as to induce belied in its
ascertaining in a judicial existence
proceeding, the truth respecting a - requires the existence of a - matter of law or rule
matter of fact _________ *di ko nasulat sorry po*
- IMMEDIATE FACT v. ULTIMATE - eligibility of an evidence to be received
ADMISSIBILITY V. WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE FACT in evidence
Evidence may be: o must have relevance
1. ADMISSIBLE because it is relevant and not excluded by the laws or rules with the ultimate fact
a. but it may not have the weight to prove a matter of fact
2. of SUFFICIENT WEIGHT - Witness
a. but may not be admissible because it is excluded by the law → o Qualification
incompetent ▪ leading
▪ did not lay the basis
▪ hearsay
Q: If evidence is admissible, does it follow that it has probative value? ▪ parol
A: NO.
- Admissibility has nothing to do with its probative value or weight ADMISSIBILITY CREDIBILITY
- Admissibility is not a guarantee of it being considered or believed in court - determined by the concurrence - competence is a matter for the court to
of the two requisites appreciate
3
- determined at the time of offer confidentiality under R.A. No. 1405. The trial court, nevertheless, denied the motion.
of evidence is made - usually determined after the evidence The CA reversed and set aside the assailed orders of the trial court.
has been admitted
- Worthiness of Belief, that quality which ISSUE: (1) Whether the testimony of Marasigan and the accompanying documents are
renders a witness worth of belief irrelevant to the case, and (2) whether they are also violative of the absolutely
confidential nature of bank deposits and, hence, excluded by operation of R.A. No.
COLLATERAL MATTERS: 1405.
- on a parallel or diverging line
- mere additional/auxiliary HELD: The testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of respondent’s supposed bank
account with Security Bank and the documentary evidence represented by the checks
General Rule: Not Allowed adduced in support thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded by operation
Exception: if it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as they do not
improbability of the fact in issue appear to have any logical and reasonable connection to the prosecution of respondent
- not directly but a tendency to supplement for qualified theft.
- induce the belief of probability or otherwise
(1) NO. The fact in issue appears to be that respondent has taken away cash in the
amount of ₱1,534,135.50 from the coffers of petitioner. Petitioner seeks to establish
BSB GROUP, INC. v. GO the existence of the elemental act of taking by adducing evidence that respondent
G.R. NO. 168644 February 16, 2010 deposited some of its checks to her personal account with Security Bank. Petitioner
addresses the incongruence between the allegation of theft of cash in the Information,
DOCTRINE: The inquiry into bank deposits allowable under R.A. No. 1405 must be on the one hand, and the evidence that respondent had first stolen the checks and
premised on the fact that the money deposited in the account is itself the subject of the deposited the same in her banking account, on the other hand, by impressing upon the
action. Court that there obtains no difference between cash and check for purposes of
prosecuting respondent for theft of cash. Petitioner is mistaken.
FACTS: Petitioner, the BSB Group, Inc., through its president, Ricardo Bangayan, filed The allegation of theft of money necessitates that evidence presented must have a
a complaint for qualified theft against respondent Sally Go (Ricardo’s wife) who is tendency to prove that the offender has unlawfully taken money belonging to another.
employed in the company as a cashier. The complaint alleged that several checks Thus, as the Information in this case accuses respondent of having stolen cash, proof
representing the amount of P1,534,135.50 issued by the company's customers in tending to establish that respondent has actualized her criminal intent by indorsing the
payment of their obligation were, instead of being turned over to the company's coffers, checks and depositing the proceeds thereof in her personal account, becomes not only
indorsed by respondent who deposited the same to her personal banking account irrelevant but also immaterial and, on that score, inadmissible in evidence.
maintained at Security Bank. Accordingly, respondent was charged with qualified theft
before the RTC, in an Information, the inculpatory portion of which reads: (2) YES. Under Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Act of 1955), “all deposits of
That x x x the said accused x x x with intent to gain and without the knowledge whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines x x x are
and consent of the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away cash money in considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired
the total amount of P1,534,135.50 belonging to BSB GROUP OF or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except x x x in cases
COMPANIES xxx. where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.”
On the premise that respondent had allegedly encashed the subject checks The inquiry into bank deposits allowable under R.A. No. 1405 must be
and deposited the corresponding amounts thereof to her personal banking account, the premised on the fact that the money deposited in the account is itself the subject of the
prosecution moved for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum /ad testificandum action. Given this perspective, the subject matter of the action in this case is to be
against the respective managers or records custodians of Security Bank and determined from the indictment that charges respondent with the offense, and not from
Metrobank. Respondent filed a motion to quash, invoking the irrelevancy of the the evidence sought by the prosecution to be admitted into the records. In the criminal
Metrobank account, as it was not mentioned in the complaint- affidavit and the Information, respondent, unqualifiedly and in plain language, is charged with qualified
absolutely confidential nature of the Metrobank account under the provisions of theft by abusing petitioner's trust and confidence and stealing cash in the amount of
R.A.1405 . The trial court denied the motion to quash for lack of merit. P1,534,135.50. The said Information makes no factual allegation that in some material
Meanwhile, the prosecution was able to present in court the testimony of the way involves the checks subject of the testimonial and documentary evidence sought
representative of Security Bank (Marasigan). But before the testimony could be to be suppressed. Neither do the allegations in said Information make mention of the
completed, respondent filed a Motion to Suppress, seeking the exclusion of supposed bank account in which the funds represented by the checks have allegedly
representative's testimony invoking, in addition to irrelevancy, the privilege of been kept.
4
In other words, it can hardly be inferred from the indictment itself that the The respondent argues citing the case of Tolentino v. Mendoza, in which the
Security Bank account is the ostensible subject of the prosecution's inquiry. The subject respondent therein opposed the admission of the birth certificates of his
matter of the action in this case is the money amounting to P1,534,135.50 alleged to illegitimate children as evidence of his grossly immoral conduct, because those
have been stolen by respondent, and not the money equivalent of the checks which are documents were obtained in violation Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of
sought to be admitted in evidence. Thus, it is that, which the prosecution is bound to 1993.
prove with its evidence, and no other. It comes clear that the admission of testimonial Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 only provides
and documentary evidence relative to respondent's Security Bank account serves no for sanctions against persons violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but
other purpose than to establish the existence of such account, its nature and the nowhere does it state that procurement of birth records in violation of said rule would
amount kept in it. It constitutes an attempt by the prosecution at an impermissible render said records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, the Revised
inquiry into a bank deposit account the privacy and confidentiality of which is protected Rules of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a
by law. result of illegal searches and seizures. Consequently, in this case where
complainants, as private individuals, obtained the subject birth records as
evidence against respondent, the protection against unreasonable searches and
DE JESUS v. SANCHEZ-MALIT seizures does not apply.
A.C. No. 36470 July 8, 2014 Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993 and the
Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from evidence of the birth
FACTS: On 23 June 2004, a disbarment complaint filed by Mercedita De Jesus certificates in question, said public documents are, therefore, admissible and should be
(De Jesus)against respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit on the following properly taken into consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against
grounds: grave misconduct, dishonesty, malpractices, and unworthiness to become respondent.
an officer of the Court. The following acts were made by the respondent: Similarly, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Law contain no provision
1) Drafted and notarized a Real Estate Mortgage of a public market stall that declaring the inadmissibility of documents obtained in violation thereof. Thus,
falsely named the former as its absolute and registered owner. the IBP correctly considered in evidence the other notarized documents
2) Notarization of lease agreement sometime in September 1999 without the submitted by complainant as additional evidence.
signature of the lessees.
3) Notarized a sale agreement over a property covered by a Certificate of
Land Ownership Award (CLOA) which was still covered by the period within
which it could not be alienated which complainant entered into with a certain
Nicomedes Tala (Tala) on 17 February 1998.
4) Three Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs) notarized by respondent which were
not signed by the principals and an Affidavit of Irene Tolentino
(Tolentino),complainant’s secretary/treasurer.
The IBP Board of Governors approved the Report and Recommendation of the PEOPLE v. SAMONTAÑEZ
Investigating Commissioner: G.R. No. 134530 December 4, 2000
a) Disqualification as notary public for two years for her violation of her oath as
such by notarizing documents without the signatures of the parties FACTS: Accused Roberto Samontañez was convicted of the crime of rape with
who had purportedly appeared before her. homicide in the RTC of Nasugbu, Batangas. The victim was 18-year old Lolita delas
b) Suspension from the practice of law for one year for violation of Canon 187 Alas who was seen lifeless and naked in the middle of a sugarcane plantation. She was
and Rule18.038 of the Code of Professional Responsibility on inaccurate apparently raped and killed by the attacker. Nobody witnessed the actual commission
crafting of the real estate mortgage contract. of the crime. Police investigation revealed that Samontañez was seen near the place
Her first and second motions for reconsideration was denied so the disbarment case where the crime was committed at approximately during the time the crime was
was submitted to SC for final action. committed. Days after, Samontañez was arrested in his workplace in Mendez, Cavite.
During the interrogation. Samontañez admitted that he has the personal belongings of
ISSUE: Whether or not the additional documents submitted in evidence by the victim. Seized from him are the victim’s personal belongings (i.e. Omax wristwatch,
complainant are inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of Section 4, Rule gold ring, Joop cologne) inside Samontañez’ bag.
VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. On the first arraignment, Samontañez pleaded not guilty to the crime charged
but later on changed it to that of guilty. Trial ensued. Samontañez’ conviction in the trial
HELD: No. Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that court hinged on: Samontañez’ plea of guilty, pieces of evidence found in possession of
"evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law Samontañez, and testimonies which seek to establish that Samontañez was seen near
or these rules." the crime scene on or about the time the crime took place.
5
scheduled hearings when the appellant revealed in open court, through counsel, that
ISSUE: Whether or not the pieces of evidence (i.e., victim’s personal belongings) his subsequent plea of guilty was prompted by "pressure" from a certain policeman so
gathered is inadmissible in evidence. that he (appellant) agreed to admit the commission of the offense charged. The
decision of the trial court is devoid of any actual finding relative to the actual commission
HELD: YES. of the crime.
The mentioned pieces of evidence are inadmissible in evidence as they are NOTE 2: RTC to SC -- This is automatic review of Decision of the RTC.
considered “fruits of poisonous tree”.
It appeared from the records that the police authorities arrested Samontañez
in his workplace in Cavite. It does not appear from the record that the appellant was NAVARRO v. COURT OF APPEALS
apprised of his constitutional rights during the police custodial investigation nor was he G.R. No. 121087 AUGUST 26, 1999
assisted by counsel which are enshrined in Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987
Constitution. In the absence of a valid waiver, any confession obtained from FACTS: The deceased Enrique Lingan and Stanley Jabuena, both reporters of the
Samontañez as well as any other evidence secured by that confession is inadmissible radio station DWTI, went to the Entertainment City following reports that it was showing
in evidence even if the same was not objected to in the trial. nude dancers. A commotion followed when Jalbuena took a picture of one of the
The libertarian exclusionary rule known as the “fruits of the poisonous tree” dancers. Jalbuena and Lingan then rushed to the police station to report the matter.
provides that once the primary source ( the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully At the police station, three policemen on duty, including herein petitioner
obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also Felipe Navarro, were having drinks in front of the police station. Thereafter, a heated
inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct argument ensued between Navarro, who was acquainted with the owners of the
result of the illegal act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect Entertainment City, and Lingan. The argument escalated to violence as Navarro hit
result of the same illegal act. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed Lingan’s head with the butt of a gun and thereafter banged his head on the concrete
from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on pavement, causing the latter’s death. Jalbuena was able to record on tape the
the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to exchange between petitioner and the deceased.
gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all During trial, Jalbuena testified against Navarro and his testimony was
evidence subsequently obtained. confirmed by the voice recording submitted to evidence. The trial court and CA found
Thus, the personal belongings of the victim found inside the bag of Navarro guilty of murder. Navarro, on appeal to the Supreme Court, alleges that: 1)
Samontañez, having been gathered by virtue of an illegally obtained confession, is Jalbuena’s testimony should be held inadmissible on the ground that he is a biased
inadmissible in evidence. witness, having a grudge against him; and 2) the tape recording should be held
NOTE 1 (other bases of conviction of the trial court): inadmissible according to Republic Act No. 4200 which prohibits wire tapping.
The only other evidence of the prosecution are the testimonies of Carlito
Samontañez and Melecio Mendoza, both of which merely seek to establish the ISSUE:
presence of the appellant near the vicinity of the crime scene on or about the time when 1) Whether or not Jalbuena’s testimony is admissible;
the crime took place. 2) Whether or not the tape recording is admissible.
Ultimately, the conviction of the appellant for the crime charged in the case at
bar rested primarily on his plea of guilty which appeared to have been HELD:
improvidently made and hence, contrary to the letter and spirit of Section 3, Rule 116 1) Yes.
of the Revised Rules of Court. The testimony of a witness who has an interest in the conviction of the
Based on Section 3, Rule 116, three (3) things are enjoined of the trial court accused is not, for this reason alone, unreliable. Trial courts, which have the opportunity
after a plea of guilty to a capital offense is entered by the accused: observe the facial expressions, gestures, and tones of voice of a witness while
1. The trial court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full testifying, are competent to determine whether his or her testimony should be given
comprehension of the consequences of his plea; credence. Here, petitioner Navarro has not shown that the trial court erred in according
2. The trial court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the weight to the testimony of Jalbuena.
guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability through the
requisite quantum of evidence; and, 2) Yes.
3. The trial court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his RA 4200 prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private
behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. It must be emphasized that the communications. Here, since the exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was
said procedure is mandatory and any judge who fails to observe it commits not private, its tape recording is not prohibited. Nor is there any question that it was
grave abuse of discretion. duly authenticated. A voice recording is authenticated by the testimony of a witness (1)
Why the plea was improvidently made: Lengthy transcript of inquiries of the that he personally recorded the conversations; (2) that the tape played in the court was
trial court failed to dwell on a significant development that transpired on the subsequent the one he recorded; and (3) that the voices on the tape are those of the persons such
6
are claimed to belong. In this case, Jalbuena testified as to these matters and thus that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed; and
sufficient foundation was laid for the authentication of the tape presented by the (c) an arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or
prosecution temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (a), Rule 113, two (2)
REYES y CAPISTRANO v. PEOPLE elements must concur, namely: (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
G.R. No. 229380 June 6, 2018 indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
FACTS: The prosecution alleged that at around 8 pm of November 6, 2012, a group of officer. On the other hand, Section 5 (b), Rule 113 requires for its application that at the
police officers from Cardona, Rizal, including PO1 Monteras, was patrolling the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer
diversion road of Barangay Looc, Cardona, Rizal when 2 teenagers approached and had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it.
informed them that a woman with long hair and a dragon tattoo on her left arm had just Essentially, the validity of this warrantless arrest requires compliance with the overt act
bought shabu in Barangay Mambog. After a few minutes, a woman, later identified to test, showing that "the accused x x x exhibit an overt act within the view of the police
be Reyes, who matched the said description and smelled like liquor passed by the officers suggesting that [she] was in possession of illegal drugs at the time [she] was
police officers. The police asked if she bought shabu and ordered her to bring it out. apprehended." Absent any overt act showing the commission of a crime, the
Reyes answered, "Di ba bawal kayong magkapkap ng babae?" and at that point, turned warrantless arrest is rendered invalid.
her back, pulled something out from her breast area and held a small plastic sachet on The Court finds that no lawful arrest was made on Reyes. PO1 Monteras
her right hand. PO1 Monteras immediately confiscated the sachet and brought it to the himself admitted that Reyes passed by them without acting suspiciously or doing
police station where he marked it with "LRC-1." Thereat, he prepared the necessary anything wrong, except that she smelled of liquor. As no other overt act could be
documents, conducted the inventory and photography before Brgy Capt. Angeles. PO1 properly attributed to Reyes as to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO1 Monteras that
Monteras turned over the seized item for examination to Police Senior Inspector she had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime, the arrest is
Villaraza, who confirmed that the substance inside the sachet tested positive for 0.04 bereft of any legal basis. As case law demonstrates, the act of walking while reeking of
gram of shabu. liquor per se cannot be considered a criminal act.
For her defense, Reyes denied the charges, claiming that the incident Neither has the prosecution established the conditions set forth in Section 5
happened on November 5, 2012 and not November 6. On said date, she came from a (b), Rule 113 as records failed to show that PO1 Monteras had any personal knowledge
drinking spree and was about to board a jeepney, when a man approached and asked that a crime had been committed by Reyes, as in fact, he even admitted that he merely
if she knew a certain person. After answering in the negative, she rode the jeepney until relied on the two (2) teenagers' tip and that, everything happened by "chance."
it was blocked by 2civilian men in motorcycles whom she identified to be one PO1 Moreover, the Court finds the version of the prosecution regarding the seizure of the
Dimacali. The latter ordered her to alight and bring out the shabu in her possession subject item as lacking in credence. It is rather contrary to ordinary human experience
which she denied having. She was then brought to the police station where the police for a person to willfully exhibit incriminating evidence which would result in his or her
officers extorted from her the amount of P35,000.00 in exchange for her freedom. But conviction for a crime, absent any impelling circumstance which would prompt him or
since she failed to give the money, the police officers took her to Taytay for inquest her to do so. Besides, the Court finds the police officers to have committed unjustified
proceedings. The RTC and the CA found her guilty of Illegal Possession of Dangerous deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA
Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, hence, this appeal. 9165, through their admission that only the Barangay Captain was present during the
marking and inventory of the seized items.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction should be upheld. In fine, there being no lawful warrantless arrest, the sachet of shabu
purportedly seized from Reyes on account of the search is rendered inadmissible
HELD: No, Reyes must be ACQUITTED. in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. And since the
To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 shabu is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, Reyes must necessarily be
(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained from acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability.
unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose in any proceeding. One of the recognized exceptions to the need of a
warrant before a search may be effected is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In this PEOPLE v. DELOCIEMBRE y ANDALES
instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can G.R. No. 226485 June 6, 2018
be made – the process cannot be reversed. A lawful warrantless arrest has to comply
with the parameters of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure DOCTRINE: The prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the
which identifies three (3) instances when warrantless arrests may be lawfully effected. dangerous drugs so as to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the
These are: (a) an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) an arrest of a suspect dangerous drugs on account of switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.
where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause Accordingly, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of
7
custody from the moment the illegal drugs are seized up to their presentation in court intricacy it is impossible for a judge of first instance, in the early stages of the
as evidence of the crime. development of the proof, to know with any certainty whether testimony is relevant or
Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, – not; and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the Attorney offering
under justifiable grounds – will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the evidence, the court may as a rule safely accept the testimony upon the statement
the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are of the attorney that the proof offered will be connected later. At any rate, in the final
properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. determination and consideration of the case, the trial Court should be able to distinguish
the admissible from the inadmissible, and reject what, under the rules of evidence,
should be excluded. There is greater reason to adhere to such policy in criminal cases
PEOPLE v. RAMOS y CABANATAN where questions arise as to admissibility of evidence for the prosecution, for the
G.R. No. 233744 February 28, 2016 unjustified exclusion of evidence may lead to the erroneous acquittal of the accused or
the dismissal of the charges, from which the People can no longer appeal.
PEOPLE v. YATCO ISSUE #2:: WON section 12 of Rule 123 is applicable in the case at bar?
G.R. No. L-9191 November 29, 1955
No. The rule cited by the Court below in support of its exclusion of the proffered
FACTS: Juan Consunji, Alfonso Panganiban, and another whose identity is still evidence is Sec. 12 of Rule 123, providing that the act or declaration of a conspirator
unknown, were charged with having conspired together in the murder of one Jose relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against
Ramos. During the progress of the trial, counsel for the defendant Panganiban the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or
interposed a general objection to any evidence on such confession made by defendant declaration. Manifestly, the rule refers to statements made by one conspirator during
consunji on the ground that it was hearsay and therefore incompetent as against the the pendency of the unlawful enterprises ("during its existence ") and in furtherance of
other accused Panganiban. its object, and not to a confession made, as in this case, long after the conspiracy had
The lower court ordered the exclusion of the objected evidence but on a been brought to an end.
different ground which is “the prosecution could not be permitted to introduce the Besides, the prosecution had not yet offered the confessions to prove
confessions of defendants Juan Consunji and Alfonso Panganiban to prove conspiracy conspiracy between the two accused, nor as evidence against both of them. In fact, the
between them, without prior proof of such conspiracy by a number of definite acts, alleged confessions (both in writing and in tape recordings) had not yet even been
conditions, and circumstances”. identified, much less formally offered in evidence. For all we know, the prosecution
OSG filed a petition for cetiorari before the SC for the review and annulment might still be able to adduce other proof of conspiracy between Consunji and
of the lower Court's order completely excluding any evidence on the extrajudicial Panganiban before their confessions are formally offered in evidence. Assuming,
confessions of the accused Juan Consunji and Alfonso Panganiban without prior proof therefore, that section 12 of Rule 123 also applies to the confessions in question, it was
of conspiracy. premature for the respondent Court to exclude them completely on the ground that
there was no prior proof of conspiracy.
ISSUE #1: WON the lower court is correct in excluding the prosecutions’s evidence
(extra-judicial confession by Consunji)? ISSUE #3: WON the court has the power to disregard evidence? (Related to the topic
Objections)
No. We believe that the lower Court committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering
the complete exclusion of the prosecution's evidence on the alleged confessions of the The court does not have the said power.
accused Juan Consunji at the stage of the trial when the ruling was made. The exclusion of the proferred confessions was not made on the basis of the
Section 14, Rule 123, Rules of Court, is specific as to the admissibility of the objection interposed by Panganiban's counsel, but upon an altogether different ground,
extrajudicial confession of an accused, freely and voluntarily made, as evidence against which the Court issued motu proprio. Panganiban's counsel objected to Consunji's
him. confession as evidence of the guilt of the other accused Panganiban, on the ground
Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, even if Consunji's that it was hearsay as to the latter. But the Court, instead of ruling on this objection, put
confession may not be competent as against his co-accused Panganiban, being up its own objection to the confessions — that it could not be admitted to prove
hearsay as to the latter, or to prove conspiracy between them without the conspiracy conspiracy between Consunji and Panganiban without prior evidence of such
being established by other evidence, the confession of Consunji was, nevertheless, conspiracy by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, circumstances, etc. and
admissible as evidence of the declarant's own guilt and should be admitted. completely excluded the confessions on that ground. By so doing, the Court overlooked
that the right to object is a mere privilege which the parties may waive; and if the ground
Rule on admissibility for objection is known and not reasonably made, the objection is deemed waived and
The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections to its materiality or the Court has no power, on its own motion, to disregard the evidence.
technical objections to the form of the questions should be avoided. In a case of any
8
SECTION 4. Relevancy; Collateral Matters.— Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the
fact in issue. (4)
RULE 129: WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED - admiralty and maritime courts of the
world and their seals
JUDICIAL NOTICE - political constitution and history of the
- cognition by the judge of certain facts on the supposition that such facts are Philippines
with his knowledge - official acts of the legislative
- executive and judicial departments of
JUDICIAL NOTICE TO JUDGES: the National Government of the
MANDANTORY DISCRETIONARY Philippines
- laws of nature
- existence and territorial extent of matters which are of: - measure of time
states, their political history - public knowledge - geographical divisions
- forms of government and symbols of - capable of unquestionable
nationality demonstration
Function:
- law of nations - ought to be known to judges
- to abbreviate litigation by the admission of matters that need no evidence
because of their judicial functions
9
o Judicial Notice is substitute for formal proof of evidence ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred in taking judicial notice of the article found
- makes evidence unnecessary in the internet without need of further authentication or verification.
- takes the place of proof and is of equal force
- displaces evidence HELD: Yes! The RTC, in dismissing the petition ruled in this wise:
o Judicial Notice The resolution of this Court - NO ONE OF THE HEREIN PARTIES HAS THE
o Judicial Admission RIGHT TO USE AND ENJOY "LAVANDERA KO"!
o Presumption [Rule 131] Based on the data taken from the internet - References: CCP encyclopedia
of Philippine art, vol. 6 http://www.himig.coin.ph (http://kahimyang.info /
- when the courts takes Judicial Notice, the court accepts and recognizes the kauswagan/articles/1420/today - in - philippine -history this information was
same without the necessity of a formal proof gathered: xxxthe "Lavandera ko" (1942) which is a composition of Santiago S.
- cannot be used to fill in gaps in the party’s evidence Suarez". Thus, the herein parties had made misrepresentation before this
court, xxx How can the herein parties have coined and created the subject
Can an adverse party dispute Judicial Notice? mark and work when these parties were not yet born; xxx
- Wigmore: Opponent is not precluded from disputing judicial fact by offering Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and
adverse evidence act on without proof because these facts are already known to them. Put differently, it
o example: dates is the assumption by a court of a fact without need of further traditional evidentiary
support. The principle is based on convenience and expediency in securing and
Can a judge take Judicial Notice of a fact determined in another case? introducing evidence on matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are not
bona fide disputed.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts.
The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care must
- vulnerable to contradiction - insuperable
be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject
- open to strife - genuine presumption
should be promptly resolved in the negative.
Generally speaking, judicial notice has three material requisites:
1. the matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
JUAN v. JUAN 2. it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
G.R. No. 221732 August 23, 2017
uncertain;
DOCTRINE: The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the
3. it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution; care The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially
must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the
known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts
subject should be promptly resolved in the negative. evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety.((because the court assumes
that the matter is so notorious that it will not be disputed.))
FACTS: Respondent claims that the started using the name and mark “Lavandera Ko” But judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of
in his Laundry Business since 1994. On 1977, the National Library issued him a
the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make
certificate of copyright over the said name and mark. Over the years, his business
his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of
expanded with numerous franchise outlets. He then formed a corporation his action.
“Laundromatic Corporation” which was incorporated in 1997, while “Lavandera Ko” was Things of "common knowledge," of which courts take judicial notice, may be
registered as a business name on 1998 with DTI. Respondent discovered that his
matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary
brother, the petitioner, was able to register the same mark with the IPO on 2001. It was experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally accepted by mankind
also discovered that the petitioner has been selling his own franchise.
as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration. Thus, facts which
Thus, the respondent filed a petition for injunction, unfair competition, are universally known, and which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or
infringement of copyright, cancellation of trademark and name with prayer for TRO and other publications, are judicially noticed, provided they are of such universal
preliminary injunction with RTC Makati.
notoriety and so generally understood that they may be regarded as forming part
RTC: dismissed the petition: neither of the parties had a right to the exclusive of the common knowledge of every person.
use of the mark because the same was the original mark and work of Santiago S.
Moreover, a judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to a reasonable
Suarez in 1942 in his musical composition called, "Lavandera Ko" and both parties of
dispute in that it is either: (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial
the present case failed to prove that they were the originators of the same mark. court; or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose
CA: Dismissed petitioner’s appeal based on technical grounds.
accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable.
10
The article in the website cited by the RTC patently lacks a requisite for it to ✗dependent on the existence or non-existence of a fact of which the court
be of judicial notice to the court because such article is not well and authoritatively has no constructive knowledge
settled and is doubtful or uncertain. It must be remembered that some articles
appearing in the internet or on websites are easily edited and their sources are JUDICIAL NOTICE – UNIVERSAL NOTORIETY
unverifiable, thus, sole reliance on those articles is greatly discouraged. - forming part of the common knowledge of every person
A party who adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and decided by the
lower court will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal
REQUISITES:
1. the matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
2. it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and EXPERTRAVEL TOURS, INC v. CA
3. it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court (REQUISITIES OF NOTORIETY) – same as judicial notice
4. generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or
5. capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable. REPUBLIC v. SCIENCE PARK
NOTORIETY: principal guide in determining what fact may be assumed
✓ public records
GENERAL RULE: Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of
✓ facts of general notoriety the records or other cases
The court assumes that the matter is so notorious that it will not be disputed. EXCEPTIONS:
But judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. - in the absence of objection and as a matter of convenience
o court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of the
Judge’s personal knowledge: mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial o case filed in its archives
knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a o party must be given an opportunity to object before the court could
fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his action, take judicial notice
JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE: only of those matters which are “commonly” known
COMMON KNOWLEDGE:
✓ judicial notice
1. matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the courts of the ordinary
experiences of life
2. matter which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of
ready and unquestioned demonstration universally known and found in
encyclopedias, dictionaries
RULE 129
What Need Not be Proved
SECTION 1. Judicial Notice, When Mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of
states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
political constitution and history of the Philippines, official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines,
the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
PEOPLE v. DOCUMENTO
MANDATORY: no motion or hearing is necessary inclusion of the 2 barangays in the city of Butuan → MANDATORY
DISCRETIONARY:
BATAAN DEVELOPMENT v. CA
11
MANDATORY
JUEGO-SAKAI v. REPUBLIC
ALMONTE v. PEOPLE ✗document  JUDICIAL NOTICE – court right to ask
COVID → JUDICIAL NOTICE
SECTION 2. Judicial Notice, When Discretionary.— A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
- public knowledge
- capable of unquestionable demonstration
- ought to be known to judges because of their judicial function
PEOPLE v. TUNDAY
✗age of the victim
PEOPLE v. OLARTE y NAMUAG
- detonating fuses
SECTION 3. Judicial Notice, When Hearing Necessary.— During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the
propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.
Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu proprio or upon motion,may take judicial notice of any matter and shall hear the parties thereon if such
matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.
Stages when judicial notice may be taken:

1. pre-trial JUDICIAL NOTICE – not subject to a reasonable dispute
2. trial
“on the propriety of taking judicial notice” BORROMEO v. MINA

- determine whether the purpose of the hearing is proper
1. MOTU PROPRIO CANDELARIA v. PEOPLE

2. UPON MOTION ✗selling price
BANK OF COMMERCE v. HEIRS OF DELA CRUZ TRINIDAD y BERSAMIN v. PEOPLE

✗contents of other cases
JUDICIAL NOTICE v. JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE:
• judicial notice  judicial knowledge
• mere personal knowledge of the judge  judicial knowledge of the court
12
SECTION 4. Judicial Admissions.— An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made.(4a)
LEYNES v. PEOPLE
ADMISSIONS Judicial admission legally binding on the party making the admission
1. party
a. real party in interest
i. agent HEIRS OF DARANTINAO v. FUENTES
ii. joint owner written
iii. predecessor in interest
b. not just a nominal party How about admissions in an answer?
2. non-party: res gestae BITONG v. CA
NO.
- not definite and certain enough
AGBAYANI v LUPA
GARDINER v. CA
 admission
✓ ORAL SPS. NOYNAY v. CITIHOMES
✓ WRITTEN pre-trial admissions
Q: Must declarant have personal knowledge of the facts admitted? REPUBLIC v. KENRICK DEVELOPMENT CORP.
A: NO.
THEORY OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSIONS: a party may, by his words or conduct,
voluntary adopt or ratify another’s statemenT
RULE 130: Rules of Admissibility
1. REAL/ OBJECT - not visual alone

2. TESTIMONIAL o covers the entire range of human senses → hearing, taste, smell,
3. DOCUMENTARY touch
OBJECT (REAL) Physical Evidence is

- real thing itself NOT verbal description of something
- tangible thing ✗replica/mere representation of a thing
ex. knife, stolen ring, bullet, dented fender, blood splatters, gun, ✗ perception of the witness and recollection of that perception
broken glass, bloodied clothes, injured leg, missing arm, scar, music
✗ reconstruction of past events
- applies directly to the senses of the Court
o instead of relying on the recollection of the witness ✗taken isolation
- enable the court to have its own firsthand perception of evidence - weighed in relation to the testimony of the witness
- have a very persuasive effect on the part of the court
- even a human being may be a form of object evidence – racial characteristics,
injuries, OJ’s Simpson’s gloves REQUIREMENTS OF ADMISSIBILITY (Sec 3, Rule 128):
1. RELEVANT: evidence must have a relationship to the fact in issue
13
a. Matter of reasoning • subject matter of the lawsuit
b. court will draw • issue in the case
2. COMPETENT: not excluded by the rules ▪ SOMEONE SHOULD INDENTIFY IT
a. AUTHENTICATED • WITNESS
i. laying the foundation • inanimate object cannot speak for itself
b. COMPETENT WITNESS • every object or documentary evidence needs a
3. FORMALLY OFFERED IN EVIDENCE witness
a. Sec. 34, Rule 132 • testimonial evidence is the foundation for all types
Court shall consider no evidence which has not been FORMALLY of evidence
OFFERED • must be sponsored by the witness
o witness must be the capacity to perceive,
identify the very object in litigation
o item in litigation
TEST OF AUTHENTICATION: o actual and personal knowledge
- for an object not to be excluded by the rules
o must pass the test of admissibility
▪ real thing
▪ actual object it claimed to be
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

SECTION 1. Object as Evidence.— Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court. (1)
OBJECT/DEMONSTRATIVE/AUTOPTIC PREFERENCE: evident of one’s own senses

Ex: photographs, motion pictures, videotaped, charts and graphs, maps, result paraffin PEOPLE v. RULLEPA y GUINTO
test, DNA, chemical test
OBJECT DOCUMENTARY
TANGAY v. CA
physical evidence is mute but eloquent manifestation of truth - address to the sense of - consists of writing or any material consisting
the court as where letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or
objects are exhibited other modes of written expression offered as
PEOPLE v. TANDOY y LIM - sense of the court proof of contents
BEST EVIDENCE - object other than - offered as proof of its content
✓ documentary expression - always expression
✗object
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
14
SECTION 2. Documentary Evidence.— Documents as evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing letters, words, sounds,
numbers,figures, symbols, or their equivalent,or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures, drawings,
stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos. (2a)
YAP v. INPOQUER
documentary over oral
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE:

- BEST EVIDENCE is a misnomer – misleading suggests that the doctrine applies to all types of evidences
o only applies to documents or writings
o there is no requirement that parties introduce the best available evidence bearing on other matters that they seek to prove in court
- ORIGINAL BE PROVED when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document and exclude secondary evidence except where the original is shown to be unavailable or
secondary evidence is otherwise allowed by the rule
- SUPERIOR EVIDENCE
- FINEST EVIDENCE
- refers to “the thing itself rather than evidence about the thing”
- not apply: proof of appearance
1. Original Document Rule
FLORES y DE LEON v. PEOPLE
HEIRS OF PRODON v. ALVAREZ

BEST EVIDENCE RULE → when the content of the document are the subject of
inquiry
✗document was actually executed or exists of the circumstances relevant to Offeror proves:
or surrounding its execution → testimonial evidence 1. existence of the original
- (Primary evidence) 2. loss and destruction of the original
- slight variation of words may make a great difference 3. absence of bad faith
- no room for doubt
- higher grade of evidence
US v. GREGORIO
- inspect, then establish what is enclosed/written
SECTION 3. Original Document Must be Produced; Exceptions.— When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or
other record,no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(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;
15
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office; and
(e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue.
(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,

without bad faith on the part of the offeror
PEOPLE v. TAN BOMPING
BPI v. MENDOZA
(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
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole
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 REPUBLIC v. MUPAS
MAGDAYAO v. PEOPLE
How to proceed? (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
1. Lay the purpose/s recorded in a public office
2. Approximate how many documents will be offered
3. IDENTIFY BY: Section 8, Rule 130. Evidence Admissible When Original Document is a Public Record.
a. Boxes – When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in
b. Bundles a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer
c. Folders in custody thereof
d. Envelopes
4. Describe the model/sample document and its contents in detain - intended to abate the risk of loss from removal or records and premised on the
a. Dimensions absence of any motive from public officers to make false copies
b. Contents
5. Explain their arrangement: chronological; by topics; by parties; by contents (e) When the original is not closely-related to a controlling issue
6. Make the original available for perusal, comparison, examination
COLLATERAL FACTS RULE:
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - if the contents of the document do not form part of or are merely incidental to the
- must be shown to be original issues in a legal dispute between the parties, it is futile to insist for the production
✗ secondary of a writing if the fact to be proved is an independent fact to which the writing is
- must be accessible to the opposing party so that the correctness of the summary merely collateral or circumstantially relevant
of the voluminous records may be tested on cross-examination and/or may be - unnecessary to produce deeds or other writings, or account for their absence, in
refuted in pleadings order to legalize a mere incidental mention of their existence by a witness, no
attempt being made to prove their contents or legal effect
SECTION 4. Original of Document.—

(a) 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 or similar device, any printout or other output readable by
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an "original."
16
(b) 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 original.
(c) 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. (4a)
(a) An "original" of a document is the document itself or any counterpart including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic
intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it. An re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent
"original" of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. techniques which accurately reproduce the original.
If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other
output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data DUPLICATES:
accurately, is an "original." - “counterpart produced by any reliable modern mechanical process”
- generally admissible in lieu of the originals without showing the unavailability of the
ORIGINAL OF THE DOCUMENT original
- contents of which are the subject of inquiry
- does not necessarily mean the first writing, recording or photograph that was
made, but rather refers to the writing, recording or photograph that is in issue in
the litigation
- depends upon what it is being offered to prove o Rationale: to eliminate best evidence objections to copies made in clearly
reliable ways, except where the objecting party can offer a good reason
PHOTOGRAPHS: to support the production of the original
o negative - preserves a preferences for the original but given due recognition to the accuracy
o any print therefrom qualifies as an “original” of copies produced by modern means
o file name
COMPUTER [output from a computer] (c) A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1)
o any readable by sight and shown to reflect accurately the data stored in the a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2)
computer is an original in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in
o original only if the data stored on the computer or diskette (USB/CD?) lieu of the original.
A machine copy of the document can equally be regard as the original if the contents DUPLICATE ORIGINALS
of the Xerox copy is an issue between the parties
Ex. Modification of the tests of a contract as written by the party on the Xerox
copy itself
DUPLICATE ORIGINALS:
CARBON Originals:
Carbonized Paper:
MAHILUM v. CA
A signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document executed at the same time as the
original is what is known as duplicate original, and, as such, may be introduced in
evidence without accounting for the non-production of the original.
(b) A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as

the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography,
17
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
RULE 1
Coverage
SECTION 1. Scope. — Unless otherwise provided herein, these Rules shall apply whenever an electronic document or electronic data message, as defined in
Rule 2 hereof,. is offered or used in evidence.
RCBC v. Oracion and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects
the electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, the
term "electronic document" may be used interchangeably with "electronic data
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT: information or the representation of information, data, message".
figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however
represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which ELECTRONIC DATA MESSAGE: an electronic document or electronic data message
a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, bearing a digital signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate.
processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents
SECTION 2. Cases covered. — These Rules shall apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.
SECTION 3. Application of other rules on evidence. — In all matters not specifically covered by these Rules, the Rules of Court and pertinent provisions of statutes
containing rules on evidence shall apply.
RULE 2
Definition of Terms and Construction
SECTION 1. Definition of Terms. — For purposes of these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows:
(a) "Asymmetric or public cryptosystem" means a system capable of generating a secure key pair, consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature,
and a public key for verifying the digital signature.
(b) "Business records " include records of any business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted
for profit, or for legitimate or illegitimate purposes.
(c) "Certificate" means an electronic document issued to support a digital signature which purports to confirm the identity or other significant characteristics
of the person who holds a particular key pair.
(d) "Computer" refers to any single or interconnected device or apparatus, which, by electronic, electro-mechanical or magnetic impulse, or by other
means with the same function, can receive, record, transmit, store, process, correlate, analyze, project, retrieve and/or produce information, data, text,
graphics, figures, voice, video, symbols or other modes of expression or perform any one or more of these functions.
(e) "Digital Signature" refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an
asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic document and the signer's public key can accurately
determine:
(i) whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signer's public key; and,
(ii) whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation was made.
(f) "Digitally signed" refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a digital signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate.
(g) "Electronic data message" refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means.
(h) "Electronic document" refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described
or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received,
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable
by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, the term
"electronic document" may be used interchangeably with "electronic data message".
18
(i) "Electronic key" refers to a secret code which secures and defends sensitive information that crosses over public channels into a form decipherable
only with a matching electronic key.
(j) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached
to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person
and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document.
For purposes of these Rules, an electronic signature includes digital signatures.
(k) "Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and
other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. cAHITS
(l) "Information and Communication System" refers to a system for generating, sending, receiving, storing or otherwise processing electronic data
messages or electronic documents and includes the computer system or other similar devices by or in which data are recorded or stored and any
procedure related to the recording or storage of electronic data messages or electronic documents.
(m) "Key Pair" in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers to the private key and its mathematically related public key such that the latter can verify the digital
signature that the former creates.
(n) "Private Key" refers to the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature.
(o) "Public Key" refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature.
SECTION 2. Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally construed to assist the parties in obtaining a just, expeditious, and inexpensive determination of cases.
The interpretation of these Rules shall also take into consideration the international origin of Republic Act No. 8792, otherwise known as
the Electronic Commerce Act.
RULE 3
Electronic Documents
SECTION 1. Electronic Documents as functional equivalent of paper-based documents. — Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term writing, document,
record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these Rules.
SECTION 2. Admissibility. — An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and
related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules.
SECTION 3. Privileged communication. — The confidential character of a privileged communication is not lost solely on the ground that it is in the form of
an electronic document.
RULE 4
Best Evidence Rule
SECTION 1. Original of an Electronic Document. — An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the
Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately.
SECTION 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. — When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or is
a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction,
or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same extent as the original if:
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of the original.
RULE 5
Authentication of Electronic Documents
SECTION 1. Burden of proving authenticity. — The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its
authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule.
19
SECTION 2. Manner of authentication. — Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by
any of the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication
of electronic documents were applied to the document; or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the Judge.
SECTION 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. — A document electronically notarized in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court
shall be considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document under the Rules of Court.
RULE 6
Electronic Signatures
SECTION 1. Electronic signature. — An electronic signature or a digital signature authenticated in the manner prescribed hereunder is admissible in evidence as
the functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written document.
SECTION 2. Authentication of electronic signatures. — An electronic signature may be authenticated in any of the following manner:
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a digital signature and verify the same;
(b) By any other means provided by law; or
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the genuineness of the electronic signature.
SECTION 3. Disputable presumptions relating to electronic signatures. — Upon the authentication of an electronic signature, it shall be presumed that:
(a) The electronic signature is that of the person to whom it correlates;
(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of authenticating or approving the electronic document to which it is related or to
indicate such person's consent to the transaction embodied therein; and
(c) The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify the electronic signature operated without error or fault.
SECTION 4. Disputable presumptions relating to digital signatures. — Upon the authentication of a digital signature, it shall be presumed, in addition to those
mentioned in the immediately preceding section, that:
(a) The information contained in a certificate is correct;
(b) The digital signature was created during the operational period of a certificate;
(c) No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or revocable;
(d) The message associated with a digital signature has not been altered from the time it was signed, and,
(e) A certificate had been issued by the certification authority indicated therein.
RULE 7
Evidentiary Weight of Electronic Documents
SECTION 1. Factors for assessing evidentiary weight. — In assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic document, the following factors may be considered:
(a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated, stored or communicated, including but not limited to input and output procedures,
controls, tests and checks for accuracy and reliability of the electronic data message or document, in the light of all the circumstances as well as any
relevant agreement; SCHIac
(b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified;
(c) The integrity of the information and communication system in which it is recorded or stored, including but not limited to the hardware and computer
programs or software used as well as programming errors;
(d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with the communication and information system;
(e) The nature and quality of the information which went into the communication and information system upon which the electronic data message
or electronic document was based; or
(f) Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the accuracy or integrity of the electronic document or electronic data message.
SECTION 2. Integrity of an information and communication system. — In any dispute involving the integrity of the information and communication system in which
an electronic document or electronic data message is recorded or stored, the court may consider, among others, the following factors:
20
(a) Whether the information and communication system or other similar device was operated in a manner that did not affect the integrity of
the electronic document, and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and communication system;
(b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored by a party to the proceedings with interest adverse to that of the party using it; or
(c) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not a party to the proceedings
and who did not act under the control of the party using it.
RULE 8
Business Records as Exception to the Hearsay Rule
SECTION 1. Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. — A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made
by electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge thereof, and kept in
the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and such was the regular practice to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic,
optical or similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence.
SECTION 2. Overcoming the presumption. — The presumption provided for in Section 1 of this Rule may be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of
the source of information or the method or circumstances of the preparation, transmission or storage thereof.
RULE 9
Method of Proof
SECTION 1. Affidavit evidence. — All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of an electronic document may be established by an affidavit
stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the affiant to testify
on the matters contained therein.
SECTION 2. Cross-examination of deponent. — The affiant shall be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit in open court and may be cross-examined as a
matter of right by the adverse party.
RULE 10
Examination of Witnesses
SECTION 1. Electronic testimony. — After summarily hearing the parties pursuant to Rule 9 of these Rules, the court may authorize the presentation of
testimonial evidence by electronic means. Before so authorizing, the court shall determine the necessity for such presentation and prescribe terms and conditions
as may be necessary under the circumstances, including the protection of the rights of the parties and witnesses concerned.
SECTION 2. Transcript of electronic testimony. — When examination of a witness is done electronically, the entire proceedings, including the questions and
answers, shall be transcribed by a stenographer, stenotypist or other recorder authorized for the purpose, who shall certify as correct the transcript done by him.
The transcript should reflect the fact that the proceedings, either in whole or in part, had been electronically recorded.
SECTION 3. Storage of electronic evidence. — The electronic evidence and recording thereof as well as the stenographic notes shall form part of the record of
the case. Such transcript and recording shall be deemed prima facie evidence of such proceedings.
RULE 11
Audio, Photographic, Video, and Ephemeral Evidence
SECTION 1. Audio, video and similar evidence. — Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be
shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person
competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
SECTION 2. Ephemeral electronic communications. — Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to
the same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted.
A recording of the telephone conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall be covered by the immediately preceding section.
If the foregoing communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic document, then the provisions of Rule 5 shall apply.
21
RULE 12
Effectivity
SECTION 1. Applicability to pending cases. — These Rules shall apply to cases pending after their effectivity.
SECTION 2. Effectivity. — These Rules shall take effect on the first day of August, 2001 following their publication before the 20th of July, 2001 in two newspapers
of general circulation in the Philippines.
VIDALLON-MAGTOLIS v. SALUD
✓ text message – prove by the party/personal knowledge PEOPLE v. ENJOAS
✓ text message
BARTOLOME v. MARANAN
PEOPLE v. WAGAS
NPC v. CODILLA, JR. AUTHENTICATION [of telephone conversation]

- person with whom the witness conversed by telephone should be first satisfactorily
paper printouts  electronic identified by voice recognition or any other means
- without the authentication, incriminating another person just by adverting to the
telephone conversation with him would be all too easy
MALIKSI v. COMELEC - identification based on familiarity of the voice of the caller
- clearly recognizable peculiarities of the caller would have sufficed
- identity of the called could also be established by the caller’s self-identification,
certified true copy are not authentic original: couple with additional evidence
NYK INTERNATIONAL v. NLRC o context and timing of the telephone call
o context of the statement challenged
Facsimile  electronic o internal patterns
MCC v. SSANGYONG o
TORRES v. PAGCOR
2. Secondary Evidence
Exception to the original evidence rule
SECTION 5. When Original Document is Unavailable.— When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror,
upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his or her part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by recital of
its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (5a)
- content of the writing may be proven by other means where the writing itself is
SUBSTITUTIONARY EVIDENCE: unavailable, or for some other legitimate reason it is not possible or feasible to
- can be used in lieu of the original produce
- preconditions for reception of secondary evidence must be justified and proven
by the existing circumstances to supplant, replace and admit the non-production MUST PROVE:
of the writing itself - ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS UNAVAILABLE
- when secondary evidence may be offered
22
1. copy
Without BAD FAITH or their part, PROVE: 2. recital of its contents in some authentic document
1. existence 3. testimony of witnesses in the order stated
2. execution
3. unavailability Q: Can Secondary Evidence be applied to object or real evidence?
a. loss [connotes inability to retrieve the original documents] A: NO.
b. destroyed
c. cannot be produced in court Public document:
d. effort exerted and proof of diligent search and effort to establish the GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. MARTINEZ
loss of the original
e. offeror
i. prove its contents by: COUNTRY BANKERS INC. LAGMAN
SECTION 6. When Original Document is in Adverse Party's Custody or Control.— If the document is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party, he or
she must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he or she fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss.
ADVERSE PARTY: A: No. Section 9, Rule 130.

1. in custody of document
2. under control of document Q: If secondary evidence is offered after compliance with Section 6, can person in
3. given reasonable possession of the original subsequently decides to release it during rebuttal?
a. time A: No prohibition. Possible contempt.
b. NOTICE to produce it: subpoena duces tecum [properly described;
repository]
4. fails to produce the document PEOPLE v. TAN BOMPING
a. SECONDARY EVIDENCE MAY BE OFFERED
Q: Can adverse party be coerced to part with the original in his possess? EXCEPTION TO THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
A. NO. It simply open the door to offer of secondary evidence, and will be given Section 3(C) Rule 130:
favorable reception “VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENT RULE” When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of
Q: Is the party who sought for production of the original document bound to offer it in time and the fact sought to be establish from them is only the general result of the
evidence? whole.
SECTION 7. Summaries.— When the contents of documents, records, photographs, or numerous accounts are voluminous and cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time, and the fact sought to be established is only the general result of the whole, the contents of such evidence may be presented in the
form of a chart, summary, or calculation.
The originals shall be available for examination or copying, or both, by the adverse party at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that they
be produced in court. (n)
- for expediency
- cannot be examined in court without great loss of time - fact to be established in only the general result of the whole
23
- to prove factum probandum; ultimate fact; fact sought to be established, it is but Summaries:
logical to suppose that details reflected on capacious documents need not be REPUBLIC v. MUPAS
accounted for
- original documents must be accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness
of the summary may be tested
SECTION 8. Evidence Admissible When Original Document is a Public Record.— When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
Sec. 3(d), Rule 130, 2019 Rule of Court:

“when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office”
- prevent the loss of public records due to removals
LLEMOS v. LLEMOS
Church registries of births, marriages, and death  public writing, kept by duly authorized public officials
✓ private writings
their authenticity must be proved as are all other private writing in accordance with the rules of evidence
SECTION 9. Party Who Calls for Document Not Bound to Offer It.— A party who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not obliged to
offer it as evidence.
3. Parol Evidence Rule
PAROL: oral or verbal - Parol evidence rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written
- contracts: extraneous; evidence aliunde agreement by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that different terms
o evidence aliunde: maybe object, documentary, testimonial were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract
- whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and
abandoned
SPOUSE EDRADA v. SPOUSES RAMOS
SECTION 10. Evidence of Written Agreements.— When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms
agreed upon and there can be, as between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he or she puts in issue in a verified pleading:
(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.
The term "agreement" includes wills.
PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE:

24
- forbids the introduction by parties and their successors in interest of verbal or EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. CAMERON GRANVILE
written extrinsic evidence that can diverge or amend LEGALLY EFFICACIOUS
AND COMPLETE WRITTEN CONTRACT
- Application is: (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
o limited to writings are contractual in their nature
o but only as to essential and substantial parts of the writing - applies when the ambiguity or uncertainty is readily apparent from reading the
▪ not those which are merely formal contract
- does no apply when the contract is real - wordings are so defective that what the author of the document intended to say
- designed to: cannot be deciphered
o give certainty to transaction which has been reduced to writing - covers causes where the parties commit mutual mistake of fact or where the
o by protecting the parties against double veracity of interested witnesses document is manifestly incomplete as the parties do not intend to exhibit the whole
and uncertain memory of disinterested witnesses agreement but only to define some of its terms
IMPORTANT: “SUBSTITENCE OF A CONTRACT THAT IS LEGALLY BINDING AND INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY:

COMPLETE IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON TO THE APPLICATION OF THE - latent, covert vagueness:
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE” o language of the contract is uncertain or vulnerable to various
interpretation
Parol Evidence Rule does not apply when the validity of the contract is also in issue: o indispensable term or condition cannot be ascertained
HEIRS OF URETA, SR. v. HEIRS OF URETA o AMBIGUITY IS NOT IN THE INSTRUMENT BUT LIES HIDDEN IN THE
- not applicable in a proceeding where the validity of such agreement is the fact PERSON OR SUBECT WHEREOF IT SPEAKS
in dispute, such as when the contract may be void for lack of timely - parol evidence will not vary the wrting but merely bring out its meaning
consideration o INTERMEDIATE AMBIGUITY: when the words of the writing although
clear and with a settled meaning still admits of two interpretations
Persons Bound: Parol evidence rule: exclusive only as “between the parties and o INACCURATE DESCRIPTION: the instrument does not become
their successors-in-interest” inoperative by reason of some inaccuracy if sufficient description remains
MARQUEZ v. ESPEJO after rejection of the erroneous addition
- PER may not be invoked where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a ▪ falsa demonstration non nocet (false description does not
party or a privy of a party to the written document in question, and does not vitiate)
base his claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument
- exceptions to the PER MISTAKE:
- unintentional act, omission or error arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition or
misplaced conficdence
However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of - may be mutual, a mistake of fact or law
the written agreement if he or she puts in issue in a verified pleading: 1. mistake mutual to both parties
2. mistake of fact
- external evidence is not entirely foreclosed by the parole evidence 3. proof of mutual mistake be of the clearest and most satisfactory character
- party can introduce evidence that may have a tendency to:
o transform
o explicate ONG CHUA v. CARR
o append
to the terms of the agreement if the admissible exceptions are averred by
the party interested in pressing for a segregation to the rule GURANGO v. IAC
If the exemption is not pleaded [via submissions: complaint, answer, motion, et.al.], a
party can hardly introduce evidence over the objection of the adverse party unless the iMPERFECTION:
latter asserts the exceptions to the PER in his responsive pleadings - defective, incomplete, wanting in some legal or formal requisite, in legal sanction
or effectiveness
Parol evidence rule does not apply when parties are not a party to the document:
25
CANUTO v. MARIANO
BORILLO v. CA
- parol evidence is not admissible to identify the property where the description
thereof is so vague as to amount to no description at all Exceptions to PAROL EVIDENCE RULE:
o not permitted to supply a description, but only to apply it SPOUSE AMONCIO v. BENEDICTO
(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement PAROL EVIDENCE RULE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
of the parties thereto; - presupposes that the original is - original is either unavailable or an
available in the court issue exists if the document is the
- court is permitted to ascertain the true objective of the parties - prohibits/enjoins deviation from original
- when found that contract does not convey true meaning of the parties: reformation the contractual term - forbids introduction of secondary
of the instrument may be order evidence irrespective of its effect on
- pertinent only to a dispute the terms of the document
between the parties or privies to - can be invoked by any party
(c) The validity of the written agreement the instrument regardless of participation on the
writing
- applies only to contractual - applies to all types of writings
arrangements, except wills
(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in
interest after the execution of the written agreement.
4. Interpretation of Documents
SECTION 11. Interpretation of a Writing According to Its Legal Meaning.— The language of a writing is to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears
in the place of its execution, unless the parties intended otherwise.
SECTION 12. Instrument Construed so as to Give Effect to All Provisions.— In the construction of an instrument[,] where there are several provisions or particulars,
such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.
SECTION 13. Interpretation According to Intention; General and Particular Provisions.— In the construction of an instrument, the intention of the parties is to be
pursued; and when a general and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that
is inconsistent with it.
SECTION 14. Interpretation According to Circumstances.— For the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including
the situation of the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the judge may be placed in the position of those whose language he or she is to
interpret.
SECTION 15. Peculiar Signification of Terms.— The terms of a writing are presumed to have been used in their primary and general acceptation, but evidence is
admissible to show that they have a local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, and were so used and understood in the particular instance, in which case
the agreement must be construed accordingly.
26
SECTION 16. Written Words Control Printed.— When an instrument consists partly of written words and partly of a printed form, and the two [(2)] are inconsistent,
the former controls the latter.
SECTION 17. Experts and Interpreters to be Used in Explaining Certain Writings.— When the characters in which an instrument is written are difficult to be
deciphered, or the language is not understood by the court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering the characters, or who understand the language, is
admissible to declare the characters or the meaning of the language.
SECTION 18. Of Two Constructions, Which Preferred.— When the terms of an agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it,
that sense is to prevail against either party in which he or she supposed the other understood it, and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise
equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made.
SECTION 19. Construction in Favor of Natural Right.— When an instrument is equally susceptible of two [(2)] interpretations, one [(1)] in favor of natural right and
the other against it, the former is to be adopted.
SECTION 20. Interpretation According to Usage.— An instrument may be construed according to usage, in order to determine its true character.
C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
- viva voce evidence: living nice Prevaricating - has given contradicting testimonies
- by word of mouth witness - still a competent witness
- testimony given in open court o but no much weight as evidence if the court finds it
- deposition by one who has observed that to which he is testifying (eye witness: is not worthy of belief
direct testimony)
- one who though he has not observed the facts is nevertheless qualified to give an
opinion relative to such facts: (expert witness)
- oral offer is essential and mandatory
- admissible only upon its oral offer at the appropriate time (ex. at the time the
witness is called to testify)
- human being is called to the stand, is asked question and answer the question Deaf-mute:
asked of him PEOPLE v. TUANGCO
not incompetent as a witness.
WITNESS All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to
- person whose statements and declarations under oath are made: others, may be witnesses. Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses where they:
o oral examination 1. can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath
o deposition 2. can comprehend facts they are going to testify on
o affidavit 3. can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter
- gives the testimony/evidence in a cause before a court
- person who testifies in cause or gives credence before a judicial tribunal
PEOPLE v. ALEMAN y LONGHAS
- MATERIAL WITNESS RULE
- One day witness rule
Dubitable Deaf-Mute testimony
Perceiving - one who has seen, or heard or learned, by his senses, the PEOPLE v. BUSTOS
witness fact concerning which he can give information when
examined
Deposing - states in a court of justice the information which he has COMPETENCE OF WITNESS:
witness acquired
27
- presence of those characteristics or the absence of those disabilities, which render becomes apparent, otherwise the objection will be considered waived and
a witness legally fit and qualified to give testimony in a court of justice such evidence will form part of the records of the case as competent and
- person legally qualified to do so admissible evidence
- qualified to take the witness stand and testify; eligible to testify on particular matter
in a judicial proceeding
- absence of any factor that would disqualify him from being a witness Caveat:
MARELLA v. REYES
QUALIFICATION AND DISQUALIFICATION → Determination by the JUDGE: - The acceptance of an incompetent witness in a civil suit, as well as the
1. upon the taking of their deposition allowance of improper questions that may be put to him while on the stand, is
2. time they are produced for examination in court a matter within the discretion of the opposing litigant, who may assert his right
by timely objection or he may waive it.
Trial Technique: o failure to object operates as a waiver
1. After the personal circumstances of the witness are taken - Once admitted, the testimony is in the case for what it is worth, and the judge
2. Proponent MUST offer the purpose of the testimony of the witness has no power to disregard it for the sole reason that it could have been
a. now, the judicial affidavit rule requires the mandatory inclusion of the excluded if objected to, nor can he strike it out on his own motion
offer
b. immediately thereafter, the opponent may raise objection to the:
i. purpose of the testimony
ii. qualifications/disqualifications of the witness
iii. court must rule on the objection to determine if witness if
qualified to testify VIOR DIRE:
3. When the disqualification becomes evident during the direct/cross PEOPLE v. MISCALA, JR. y MAGTANONG
examination - The examination is conducted to determine the competency or qualifications
of the witness in case it is objected to
Failure to object on competency of witness: - VIOR DIRE → court reminds him or her about the consequences of the trust
PEOPLE v. DURANAN
- any objection to the competency of complainant to testify should have been
raised by the defense at the outset TWO KINDS OF INCOMPENTENCY TO TESTIFY:
o cannot be raised for the first time on appeal ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION RELATIVE DISQUALIFICATION
- A party may waive his objection to the competency of witness and permit him - forbidden to testify on any other - Section 23 and 24, Rule 130
to testify . . . If, after such incompetency appears, there is failure to make matter - Certain matters due to:
timely objection, by a party having knowledge of the incompetency, the o civil interdiction o interest
objection will be deemed waived, whether it is on the ground of want of mental o relation
capacity or for some other reason. If the objection could have been taken o to privilege of other
during the trial, a new trial will be refused and the objection will not be available parties
on writ of error
- VOIR DIRE: “to speak the truth”
o preliminary examination to ascertain whether he possesses the COMPETENCE CREDIBILITY
required qualifications, being sworn to make true answers - matter or LAW and RULE (PH - believability of a witness and
Jurisdiction) has nothing to do with the law or
the rules
PEOPLE v. BISDA
- If a party admits proof to be taken in a case without an oath, after the testimony - Court will not inquire into - weight and trustworthiness or
has been acted upon by the court, and made the basis of a judgment, such trustworthiness of a witness reliability of testimony
party can no longer object to the admissibility of the said testimony
- Basic qualification of a witness as his
o he is estopped from raising the issue in the appellate court
capacity to perceive and communicate
- Any objection to the admissibility of evidence should be made at the time such his perception to others
evidence is offered or as soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility
28
- absence of any disqualification (Secs 4. understanding
20-24, Rule 130) - Grounds for attacking credibility:
- Not incompetent: o bias
o bias o drug abuse OATH:
o prevaricating o loose morals - precondition to testimony
o drug abused o relationship - essential to the qualification of a witness
- additional security afforded by the religious sanction implied in an oath
- Grounds affecting competence: - if not taken: only that part of the evidence which follows the oath or affirmation is
o religious belief competent
o political belief - one who believes in the obligation of an oath is competent as a witness although
o intertest in the outcome of the he is without religious conviction
case - necessary for the witness to recognize the duty to tell the trust
o conviction of a crime - The issue which the judge must resolve before a witness is allowed to take the
o non-belief in oath stand is whether the witness understands the nature of an oath, realizes the
- For consideration only: moral duty to tell the truth, and understands the prospects of being punished
o relationship for falsehoods.
INTERVENTION OF WITNESS:
- identification by witness
Personal Interest in the outcome of the case: - identification precedes authentication
PEOPLE v. MALDO o without a witness, no evidence can ever be authenticated
- being inanimate → document or object cannot speak for itself
REPUBLIC v. CA Q: Can extrajudicial settlement qualify as testimonial evidence?

A: YES.
1. deposition pending action
Improper motive: 2. exception to the hearsay evidence rule:
PEOPLE v. UMALI y AMADO a. demise of the deponent
b. unavailability to testify
Loose Morals:
PEOPLE v. CHENG PEOLE v. SERGION
Relationship: SAN LUIS v. ROJAS

PEOPLE v. VILLAFLORES
QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE v. LETIGIO PEOPLE v. SOTA
- Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for
determining the weight of a particular testimony.
Previous Conviction: - Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
PEOPLE v. SOLIMAN y BUENAVENTURA witness but must be credible in itself, such as the common experience and
observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances
Essence/elements of verbal representation:
1. observation: perceive
2. recollection: remember, record
3. communication: recount
29
SECTION 21. Witnesses; Their Qualifications.— All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification.
MARCOS v, HEIRS OF NAVARRO, JR.

CONVICTION OF A CRIME:
- when asked, a witness must answer to the fact of their previous final conviction for
NOTES: an offense
- Loss of perceptive sense after the occurrence of the fact does not affect the o not a bar to testimonial evidence
admissibility of his testimony ▪ except when specified by law
o Blind man can testify to what he saw prior to being blind, or a deaf man
as to what he heard prior to being deaf
- The time of the utterance of the testimony is the time that when the qualifications Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, every child is now presumed
must exist because it is at the time that they are need. qualified to be a witness.
o Exception:
▪ Probate of a will: supervening incapacity of the witness or
testator will not prevent allowance of the will if they were PEOLE v. DE JESUS y QUIZON
competent at the time of execution and attestation of the will
RELIGIOUS BELIEF, POLITICAL IDEOLOGY: Mental Retardation; Feeble Minded:

- does not disqualify a witness from testifying PEOPLE v. PALMA
- evidence of beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible - A feebleminded complainant is a competent witness as long as she can
for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness’ credibility is convey her ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently intelligent answers to
impaired or enhanced the questions propounded by the court and the counsels
INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE CRIME:

- Mere interest in the question in litigation or bias arising from such interest, is not a Mental Retardation
disqualification PEOPLE v. GILBERO
o Interest must be actual legal existing interest, and not one merely - A mental retardate is not, by reason of such handicap alone, disqualified from
expected or imaginary, but if the interest is of this character, it is being as witness.
immaterial to slight such interest may be - GR: When a witness takes the stand to testify, the law, on grounds of public
o Test is not magnitude but the nature of the interest policy, presumes that he is competent unless shown to be otherwise.
Trial Technique:
- During cross-examination, this aspect must be explored and expanded Child witness:
- Must prove that witness is testifying on facts PEOPLE v. MENDOZA
o unbiased - The requirements of a child’s competency as a witness are the:
o even o capacity of observation
o impartial o capacity of recollection
- Do not confront the witness at once so they will not be on guard o capacity of communication
- Ease them into the question so he will not act defensive and give a casual, often - In ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to the
factual answer foregoing requirements, it is settled that the trial court is called upon to make
such determination
30
- The testimony of minors of tender age will suffice to convict a person accused
of a crime so long as it is credible
PEOPLE v. ESUGON y AVILA
- The party challenging the child’s competency as a witness has the burden of
substantiating his challenge Rape of a 10 year old:
- Only when substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to PEOPLE v. GALIMBA y SISON
perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or - Testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full
appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court will the court, motu proprio or on credence considering that “no woman, especially of tender age, would concoct
motion of a party, conduct a competency examination of a child. a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter
pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely
Robbery: Child Witness: by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.”
MARCO v. CA
PROPOSED RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS

SECTION 1. Applicability of the Rule. — Unless otherwise provided, this Rule shall govern the examination of child witnesses who are victims of crime, accused
of a crime, and witnesses to crime. It shall apply in all criminal proceedings and non-criminal proceedings involving child witnesses.
SECTION 2. Objectives. — The objectives of this Rule are to create and maintain an environment that will allow children to give reliable and complete evidence,
minimize trauma to children, encourage children to testify in legal proceedings, and facilitate the ascertainment of truth.
SECTION 3. Construction of the Rule. — This Rule shall be liberally construed to uphold the best interests of the child and to promote maximum accommodation
of child witnesses without prejudice to the constitutional rights of the accused. ASaTCE
SECTION 4. Definitions. —
(a) A "child witness" is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age of eighteen (18) years. In child abuse cases, a child includes one
over eighteen (18) years but is found by the court as unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or
discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.
(b) "Child abuse" means physical, psychological, or sexual abuse, and criminal neglect as defined in Republic Act No. 7610 and other related laws.
(c) "Facilitator" means a person appointed by the court to pose questions to a child.
(d) "Record regarding a child" or "record" means any photograph, videotape, audiotape, film, handwriting, typewriting, printing, electronic recording,
computer data or printout, or other memorialization, including any court document, pleading, or any copy or reproduction of any of the foregoing, that
contains the name, description, address, school, or any other personal identifying information about a child or his family and that is produced or
maintained by a public agency, private agency, or individual.
(e) A "guardian ad litem" is a person appointed by the court where the case is pending for a child who is a victim of, accused of, or a witness to a crime
to protect the best interests of the said child. EcHIDT
(f) A "support person" is a person chosen by the child to accompany him to testify at or attend a judicial proceeding or deposition to provide emotional
support for him.
(g) "Best interests of the child" means the totality of the circumstances and conditions as are most congenial to the survival, protection, and feelings of
security of the child and most encouraging to his physical, psychological, and emotional development. It also means the least detrimental available
alternative for safeguarding the growth and development of the child.
(h) "Developmental level" refers to the specific growth phase in which most individuals are expected to behave and function in relation to the
advancement of their physical, socio-emotional, cognitive, and moral abilities.
31
(i) "In-depth investigative interview" or "disclosure interview" is an inquiry or proceeding conducted by duly trained members of multidisciplinary team or
representatives of law enforcement or child protective services for the purpose of determining whether child abuse has been committed.
SECTION 5. Guardian Ad Litem. —

(a) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is a victim of, accused of, or a witness to a crime to promote the best interests of the child.
In making the appointment, the court shall consider the background of the guardian ad litem and his familiarity with the judicial process, social service
programs, and child development, giving preference to the parents of the child, if qualified. The guardian ad litem may be a member of the Philippine Bar.
A person who is a witness in any proceeding involving the child cannot be appointed as a guardian ad litem.
(b) The guardian ad litem:
(1) Shall attend all interviews, depositions, hearings, and trial proceedings in which a child participates;
(2) Shall make recommendations to the court concerning the welfare of the child;
(3) Shall have access to all reports, evaluations, and records necessary to effectively advocate for the child, except privileged communications;
(4) Shall marshal and coordinate the delivery of resources and special services to the child;
(5) Shall explain, in language understandable to the child, all legal proceedings, including police investigations, in which the child is involved;
(6) Shall assist the child and his family in coping with the emotional effects of crime and subsequent criminal or non-criminal proceedings in
which the child is involved;
(7) May remain with the child while the child waits to testify;
(8) May interview witnesses; and
(9) May request additional examinations by medical or mental health professionals if there is a compelling need therefor.
(c) The guardian ad litem shall be notified of all proceedings but shall not participate in the trial. However, he may file motions pursuant to sections 9, 10,
25, 26, 27 and 31(c). If the guardian ad litem is a lawyer, he may object during trial that questions asked of the child are not appropriate to his
developmental level. ECDaAc
(d) The guardian ad litem may communicate concerns regarding the child to the court through an officer of the court designated for that purpose.
(e) The guardian ad litem shall not testify in any proceeding concerning any information, statement, or opinion received from the child in the course of
serving as a guardian ad litem, unless the court finds it necessary to promote the best interests of the child.
(f) The guardian ad litem shall be presumed to have acted in good faith in compliance with his duties described in sub-section (b).
SECTION 6. Competency. — Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. However, the court shall conduct a competency examination of a child, motu
proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth
from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court.
(a) Proof of Necessity. — A party seeking a competency examination must present proof of necessity of competency examination. The age of the child by
itself is not a sufficient basis for a competency examination.
(b) Burden of Proof . — To rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his competence.
(c) Persons allowed at competency examination. — Only the following are allowed to attend a competency examination:
(1) The judge and necessary court personnel;
(2) The counsel for the parties;
(3) The guardian ad litem;
(4) One or more support persons for the child; and
(5) The defendant, unless the court determines that competence can be fully evaluated in his absence.
(d) Conduct of examination. — Examination of a child as to his competence shall be conducted only by the judge. Counsel for the parties, however, can
submit questions to the judge that he may, in his discretion, ask the child.
(e) Developmentally appropriate questions. — The questions asked at the competency examination shall be appropriate to the age and developmental
level of the child; shall not be related to the issues at trial; and shall focus on the ability of the child to remember, communicate, distinguish between truth
and falsehood, and appreciate the duty to testify truthfully.
32
(f) Continuing duty to assess competence. — The court has the duty of continuously assessing the competence of the child throughout his testimony.
SECTION 7. Oath or Affirmation. — Before testifying, a child shall take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth.
SECTION 8. Examination of a Child Witness. — The examination of a child witness presented in a hearing or any proceeding shall be done in open court. Unless
the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.
The party who presents a child witness or the guardian ad litem of such child witness may, however, move the court to allow him to testify in the manner provided
in this Rule.
SECTION 9. Interpreter for Child. —

(a) When a child does not understand the English or Filipino language or is unable to communicate in said languages due to his developmental level, fear,
shyness, disability, or other similar reason, an interpreter whom the child can understand and who understands the child may be appointed by the
court, motu proprio or upon motion, to interpret for the child.
(b) If a witness or member of the family of the child is the only person who can serve as an interpreter for the child, he shall not be disqualified and may
serve as the interpreter of the child. The interpreter, however, who is also a witness, shall testify ahead of the child.
(c) An interpreter shall take an oath or affirmation to make a true and accurate interpretation.
SECTION 10. Facilitator to Pose Questions to Child. —

(a) The court may, motu proprio or upon motion, appoint a facilitator if it determines that the child is unable to understand or respond to questions asked.
The facilitator may be a child psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, guidance counselor, teacher, religious leader, parent, or relative.
(b) If the court appoints a facilitator, the respective counsels for the parties shall pose questions to the child only through the facilitator. The questions
shall either be in the words used by counsel or, if the child is not likely to understand the same, in words that are comprehensible to the child and which
convey the meaning intended by counsel. DCHaTc
(c) The facilitator shall take an oath or affirmation to pose questions to the child according to the meaning intended by counsel.
SECTION 11. Support Persons. —

(a) A child testifying at a judicial proceeding or making a deposition shall have the right to be accompanied by one or two persons of his own choosing to
provide him emotional support.
(1) Both support persons shall remain within the view of the child during his testimony.
(2) One of the support persons may accompany the child to the witness stand, provided the support person does not completely obscure
the child from the view of the opposing party, judge, or hearing officer.
(3) The court may allow the support person to hold the hand of the child or take other appropriate steps to provide emotional support to
the child in the course of the proceedings.
(4) The court shall instruct the support persons not to prompt, sway, or influence the child during his testimony.
(b) If the support person chosen by the child is also a witness, the court may disapprove the choice if it is sufficiently established that the attendance of
the support person during the testimony of the child would pose a substantial risk of influencing or affecting the content of the testimony of the child.
(c) If the support person who is also a witness is allowed by the court, his testimony shall be presented ahead of the testimony of the child.
SECTION 12. Waiting Area for Child Witnesses. — The courts are encouraged to provide a waiting area for children that is separate from waiting areas used by
other persons. The waiting area for children should be furnished so as to make a child comfortable. ESTCHa
SECTION 13. Courtroom Environment. — To create a more comfortable environment for the child, the court may, in its discretion, direct and supervise the location,
movement and deportment of all persons in the courtroom including the parties, their counsel, child, witnesses, support persons, guardian ad litem, facilitator, and
court personnel. The child may be allowed to testify from a place other than the witness chair. The witness chair or other place from which the child testifies may
33
be turned to facilitate his testimony but the opposing party and his counsel must have a frontal or profile view of the child during the testimony of the child.
The witness chair or other place from which the child testifies may also be rearranged to allow the child to see the opposing party and his counsel, if he chooses
to look at them, without turning his body or leaving the witness stand. The judge need not wear his judicial robe.
Nothing in this section or any other provision of law, except official in-court identification provisions, shall be construed to require a child to look at the
accused.
Accommodations for the child under this section need not be supported by a finding of trauma to the child.
SECTION 14. Testimony During Appropriate Hours. — The court may order that the testimony of the child should be taken during a time of day when the child is
well-rested.
SECTION 15. Recess During Testimony. — The child may be allowed reasonable periods of relief while undergoing direct, cross, re-direct, and re-cross
examinations as often as necessary depending on his developmental level.
SECTION 16. Testimonial Aids. — The court shall permit a child to use dolls, anatomically-correct dolls, puppets, drawings, mannequins, or any other appropriate
demonstrative device to assist him in his testimony.
SECTION 17. Emotional Security Item. — While testifying, a child shall be allowed to have an item of his own choosing such as a blanket, toy, or doll.
SECTION 18. Approaching the Witness. — The court may prohibit a counsel from approaching a child if it appears that the child is fearful of or intimidated by the
counsel. DACcIH
SECTION 19. Mode of Questioning. — The court shall exercise control over the questioning of children so as to (1) facilitate the ascertainment of the truth, (2)
ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the child, (3) protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment, and
(4) avoid waste of time.
The court may allow the child witness to testify in a narrative form.
SECTION 20. Leading Questions. — The court may allow leading questions in all stages of examination of a child if the same will further the interests of justice.
SECTION 21. Objections to Questions. — Objections to questions should be couched in a manner so as not to mislead, confuse, frighten, or intimidate the child.
SECTION 22. Corroboration. — Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. His testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a
finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases.
SECTION 23. Excluding the Public. — When a child testifies, the court may order the exclusion from the courtroom of all persons, including members of the press,
who do not have a direct interest in the case. Such an order may be made to protect the right to privacy of the child or if the court determines on the record that
requiring the child to testify in open court would cause psychological harm to him, hinder the ascertainment of truth, or result in his inability to effectively
communicate due to embarrassment, fear, or timidity. In making its order, the court shall consider the developmental level of the child, the nature of the crime, the
nature of his testimony regarding the crime, his relationship to the accused and to persons attending the trial, his desires, and the interests of his parents or legal
guardian. The court may, motu proprio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during trial is of such character as to be offensive to
decency or public morals. The court may also, on motion of the accused, exclude the public from trial, except court personnel and the counsel of the parties.
SECTION 24. Persons Prohibited from Entering and Leaving Courtroom. — The court may order that persons attending the trial shall not enter or leave the
courtroom during the testimony of the child.
34
SECTION 25. Live-link Television Testimony in Criminal Cases Where the Child is a Victim or a Witness. —
(a) The prosecutor, counsel, or the guardian ad litem may apply for an order that the testimony of the child be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be
televised to the courtroom by live-link television.
Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section, he shall consult the prosecutor or counsel and shall defer to the judgment of the
prosecutor or counsel regarding the necessity of applying for an order. In case the guardian ad litem is convinced that the decision of the prosecutor or counsel
not to apply will cause the child serious emotional trauma, he himself may apply for the order.
The person seeking such an order shall apply at least five (5) days before the trial date, unless the court finds on the record that the need for such an order was
not reasonably foreseeable.
(b) The court may motu proprio hear and determine, with notice to the parties, the need for taking the testimony of the child through live-link television.
(c) The judge may question the child in chambers, or in some comfortable place other than the courtroom, in the presence of the support person, guardian ad
litem, prosecutor, and counsel for the parties. The questions of the judge shall not be related to the issues at trial but to the feelings of the child about testifying in
the courtroom.
(d) The judge may exclude any person, including the accused, whose presence or conduct causes fear to the child.
(e) The court shall issue an order granting or denying the use of live-link television and stating the reasons therefor. It shall consider the following factors:
(1) The age and level of development of the child;
(2) His physical and mental health, including any mental or physical disability;
(3) Any physical, emotional, or psychological injury experienced by him;
(4) The nature of the alleged abuse;
(5) Any threats against the child;
(6) His relationship with the accused or adverse party;
(7) His reaction to any prior encounters with the accused in court or elsewhere;
(8) His reaction prior to trial when the topic of testifying was discussed with him by parents or professionals;
(9) Specific symptoms of stress exhibited by the child in the days prior to testifying;
(10) Testimony of expert or lay witnesses;
(11) The custodial situation of the child and the attitude of the members of his family regarding the events about which he will testify; and
(12) Other relevant factors, such as court atmosphere and formalities of court procedure.
(f) The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link television if there is a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer trauma from
testifying in the presence of the accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma must be of a kind which would impair the completeness
or truthfulness of the testimony of the child.
(g) If the court orders the taking of testimony by live-link television:
(1) The child shall testify in a room separate from the courtroom in the presence of the guardian ad litem; one or both of his support persons; the
facilitator and interpreter, if any; a court officer appointed by the court; persons necessary to operate the closed-circuit television equipment; and other
persons whose presence are determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child; ITSCED
(2) The judge, prosecutor, accused, and counsel for the parties shall be in the courtroom. The testimony of the child shall be transmitted by live-link
television into the courtroom for viewing and hearing by the judge, prosecutor, counsel for the parties, accused, victim, and the public unless excluded.
(3) If it is necessary for the child to identify the accused at trial, the court may allow the child to enter the courtroom for the limited purpose of identifying
the accused, or the court may allow the child to identify the accused by observing the image of the latter on a television monitor.
(4) The court may set other conditions and limitations on the taking of the testimony that it finds just and appropriate, taking into consideration the best
interests of the child.
(h) The testimony of the child shall be preserved on videotape, digital disc, or other similar devices which shall be made part of the court record and shall be
subject to a protective order as provided in section 31(b).
SECTION 26. Screens, One-way Mirrors, and Other Devices to Shield Child from Accused. —
35
(a) The prosecutor, counsel, or the guardian ad litem may apply for an order that the chair of the child or that a screen or other device be placed in the courtroom
in such a manner that the child cannot see the accused while testifying. Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section, he shall consult with
the prosecutor or counsel subject to the second and third paragraphs of section 25(a) of this Rule. The court shall issue an order stating the reasons and describing
the approved courtroom arrangement.
(b) If the court grants an application to shield the child from the accused while testifying in the courtroom, the courtroom shall be arranged to enable the accused
to view the child.
SECTION 27. Videotaped Deposition. —

(a) The prosecutor or the guardian ad litem may apply for an order that a deposition be taken of the testimony of the child and that it be recorded and preserved
on videotape. Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section, he shall consult with the prosecutor or counsel subject to the second and third
paragraphs of section 25(a).
(b) If the court finds that the child will not be able to testify in open court at trial, it shall issue an order that the deposition of the child be taken and preserved by
videotape.
(c) The judge shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a child. Objections to deposition testimony or evidence, or parts thereof, and the grounds for the
objection shall be stated and shall be ruled upon at the time of the taking of the deposition. The other persons who may be permitted to be present at the proceeding
are:
(1) The prosecutor;
(2) The defense counsel;
(4) The accused, subject to sub-section (e);
(5) Other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child;
(6) One or both of his support persons, the facilitator and interpreter, if any;
(7) The court stenographer; and
(8) Persons necessary to operate the videotape equipment.
(d) The rights of the accused during trial, especially the right to counsel and to confront and cross-examine the child, shall not be violated during the
deposition. ACEIac
(e) If the order of the court is based on evidence that the child is unable to testify in the physical presence of the accused, the court may direct the latter to be
excluded from the room in which the deposition is conducted. In case of exclusion of the accused, the court shall order that the testimony of the child be taken by
live-link television in accordance with section 25 of this Rule. If the accused is excluded from the deposition, it is not necessary that the child be able to view an
image of the accused.
(f) The videotaped deposition shall be preserved and stenographically recorded. The videotape and the stenographic notes shall be transmitted to the clerk of the
court where the case is pending for safekeeping and shall be made a part of the record.
(g) The court may set other conditions on the taking of the deposition that it finds just and appropriate, taking into consideration the best interests of the child, the
constitutional rights of the accused, and other relevant factors.
(h) The videotaped deposition and stenographic notes shall be subject to a protective order as provided in section 31(b).
(i) If, at the time of trial, the court finds that the child is unable to testify for a reason stated in section 25(f) of this Rule, or is unavailable for any reason described
in section 4(c), Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may admit into evidence the videotaped deposition of the child in lieu of his testimony at
the trial. The court shall issue an order stating the reasons therefor.
(j) After the original videotaping but before or during trial, any party may file any motion for additional videotaping on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The court may order an additional videotaped deposition to receive the newly discovered evidence.
SECTION 28. Hearsay Exception in Child Abuse Cases. — A statement made by a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise
admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted in evidence in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding subject to the following rules:
36
(a) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, its proponent shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such statement and its particulars
to provide him a fair opportunity to object. If the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party, require the child to be present at the
presentation of the hearsay statement for cross-examination by the adverse party. When the child is unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved
by the proponent. SAcaDE
(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the court shall consider the time, content and circumstances thereof which provide sufficient indicia of
reliability. It shall consider the following factors:
(1) Whether there is a motive to lie;
(2) The general character of the declarant child;
(3) Whether more than one person heard the statement;
(4) Whether the statement was spontaneous;
(5) The timing of the statement and the relationship between the declarant child and witness;
(6) Cross-examination could not show the lack of knowledge of the declarant child;
(7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is remote; and
(8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child misrepresented the involvement of the
accused.
(c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable under the following situations:
(1) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, or will be exposed to severe psychological injury; or
(2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance by process or other reasonable
means. AICEDc
(d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other admissible evidence.
SECTION 29. Admissibility of Videotaped and Audiotaped In-depth Investigative or Disclosure Interviews in Child Abuse Cases. — The court may admit videotape
and audiotape in-depth investigative or disclosure interviews as evidence, under the following conditions:
(a) The child witness is unable to testify in court on grounds and under conditions established under section 28 (c).
(b) The interview of the child was conducted by duly trained members of a multidisciplinary team or representatives of law enforcement or child protective services
in situations where child abuse is suspected so as to determine whether child abuse occurred.
(c) The party offering the videotape or audiotape must prove that:
(1) the videotape or audiotape discloses the identity of all individuals present and at all times includes their images and voices;
(2) the statement was not made in response to questioning calculated to lead the child to make a particular statement or is clearly shown to be the
statement of the child and not the product of improper suggestion;
(3) the videotape and audiotape machine or device was capable of recording testimony; HAaECD
(4) the person operating the device was competent to operate it;
(5) the videotape or audiotape is authentic and correct; and
(6) it has been duly preserved.
The individual conducting the interview of the child shall be available at trial for examination by any party. Before the videotape or audiotape is offered in
evidence, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity to view or listen to it and shall be furnished a copy of a written transcript of the proceedings.
The fact that an investigative interview is not videotaped or audiotaped as required by this section shall not by itself constitute a basis to exclude from
evidence out-of-court statements or testimony of the child. It may, however, be considered in determining the reliability of the statements of the child describing
abuse. IcHSCT
SECTION 30. Sexual Abuse Shield Rule. —

(a) Inadmissible evidence. — The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse:
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
37
(b) Exception. — Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen,
injury, or other physical evidence shall be admissible.
A party intending to offer such evidence must:
(1) File a written motion at least fifteen (15) days before trial, specifically describing the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered, unless
the court, for good cause, requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and
(2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad litem at least three (3) days before the hearing of the motion.
Before admitting such evidence, the court must conduct a hearing in chambers and afford the child, his guardian ad litem, the parties, and their counsel
a right to attend and be heard. The motion and the record of the hearing must be sealed and remain under seal and protected by a protective order set forth in
section 31(b). The child shall not be required to testify at the hearing in chambers except with his consent.
S
ECTION 31. Protection of Privacy and Safety. —
(a) Confidentiality of records. — Any record regarding a child shall be confidential and kept under seal. Except upon written request and order of the court, a
record shall only be released to the following:
(1) Members of the court staff for administrative use;
(2) The prosecuting attorney;
(3) Defense counsel;
(5) Agents of investigating law enforcement agencies; and
(6) Other persons as determined by the court.
(b) Protective order. — Any videotape or audiotape of a child that is part of the court record shall be under a protective order that provides as follows:
(1) Tapes may be viewed only by parties, their counsel, their expert witness, and the guardian ad litem.
(2) No tape, or any portion thereof, shall be divulged by any person mentioned in sub-section (a) to any other person, except as necessary for the
trial. HCITcA
(3) No person shall be granted access to the tape, its transcription or any part thereof unless he signs a written affirmation that he has received and
read a copy of the protective order; that he submits to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the protective order; and that in case of violation
thereof, he will be subject to the contempt power of the court.
(4) Each of the tape cassettes and transcripts thereof made available to the parties, their counsel, and respective agents shall bear the following
cautionary notice:
"This object or document and the contents thereof are subject to a protective order issued by the court in (case title), (case number). They shall not be
examined, inspected, read, viewed, or copied by any person, or disclosed to any person, except as provided in the protective order. No additional
copies of the tape or any of its portion shall be made, given, sold, or shown to any person without prior court order. Any person violating such protective
order is subject to the contempt power of the court and other penalties prescribed by law."
(5) No tape shall be given, loaned, sold, or shown to any person except as ordered by the court.
(6) Within thirty (30) days from receipt, all copies of the tape and any transcripts thereof shall be returned to the clerk of court for safekeeping unless the
period is extended by the court on motion of a party.
(7) This protective order shall remain in full force and effect until further order of the court. EICDSA
(c) Additional protective orders. — The court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, the child, his parents, legal guardian, or the guardian ad litem, issue
additional orders to protect the privacy of the child.
(d) Publication of identity contemptuous. — Whoever publishes or causes to be published in any format the name, address, telephone number, school, or other
identifying information of a child who is or is alleged to be a victim or accused of a crime or a witness thereof, or an immediate family of the child shall be liable to
the contempt power of the court.
(e) Physical safety of child; exclusion of evidence. — A child has a right at any court proceeding not to testify regarding personal identifying information, including
his name, address, telephone number, school, and other information that could endanger his physical safety or his family. The court may, however, require
the child to testify regarding personal identifying information in the interest of justice.
38
(f) Destruction of videotapes and audiotapes. — Any videotape or audiotape of a child produced under the provisions of this Rule or otherwise made part of the
court record shall be destroyed after five (5) years have elapsed from the date of entry of judgment. AcICHD
(g) Records of youthful offender. — Where a youthful offender has been charged before any city or provincial prosecutor or before any municipal judge and the
charges have been ordered dropped, all the records of the case shall be considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone for any
purpose whatsoever.
Where a youthful offender has been charged and the court acquits him, or dismisses the case or commits him to an institution and subsequently releases
him pursuant to Chapter 3 of P.D. No. 603, all the records of his case shall also be considered as privileged and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to
anyone except to determine if a defendant may have his sentence suspended under Article 192 of P.D. No. 603 or if he may be granted probation under the
provisions of P.D. No. 968 or to enforce his civil liability, if said liability has been imposed in the criminal action. The youthful offender concerned shall not be held
under any provision of law to be guilty of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related
thereto in response to any inquiry made to him for any purpose.
"Records" within the meaning of the sub-section shall include those which may be in the files of the National Bureau of Investigation and with any police
department or government agency which may have been involved in the case. (Art. 200, P.D. No. 603)
SECTION 32. Applicability of Ordinary Rules. — The provisions of the Rules of Court on deposition, conditional examination of witnesses, and evidence shall be
applied in a suppletory character.
SECTION 33. Effectivity. — This Rule shall take effect on December 15, 2000 following its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
DISQUALIFICATIONS UNDER THE 2019 AMENDMENTS:

1. WANT OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
2. SPOUSAL IMMUNITY
3. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
4. PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE
5. PRIVILEGED TRADE SECRETS
SECTION 22. Testimony Confined to Personal Knowledge.— A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge;
that is, which are derived from his or her own perception.
▪ of his/her own personal knowledge

“facts” ▪ derived from own perception
“knows of their personal knowledge”
“own perception” LACK OF FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE RULE:
- ordinary (non-expert) witness must limit his testimony to facts of which he has first-
PREFERENCE OF COURT TO RECEIVE THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE: hand knowledge
1. Best evidence rule o if the witness testifies about facts that could have been perceived by the
2. Hearsay rule sense, the witness must have perceived it himself, not learned from
3. Lack of first-hand knowledge (of facts) rule someone
4. Opinion rule
Example:
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE RULE: - W says: “the car that hit P was a red volvo”
- Testimony based on personal knowledge o If from other testimony by W, it is clear that W was not present during
o testify only on: the incident → proper objection: “witness is not testifying from
▪ facts which he/she knows personal knowledge” not an objection based on hearsay
39
- W say: “P told me that the car that hit him was a red volvo” o but it is clear from context that
o Proper objection: HEARSAY. W is certainly testifying to something the statement is really based
within his own first-hand experience (since he personally upon a declaration made to the
experienced P’s declaration) but his testimony is the recitation of witness by an out-of-court
someone else’s out-of-court declaration, offered to prove the truth to declarant
the declaration - with exceptions - no formal exceptions
- W, a passenger in P’s car, testifies that D drove through red light. On cross-
examination, W admits that he did not actually see what color the light was LACK OF FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE RULE = Indirect Hearsay
when D drove through, and that he is relying on what P told him shortly after Example:
the 2 cars collided. Q: What is your name?
o Since W is not testifying from personal knowledge about the color of A. My name is Juan Ramos
the light, his testimony on that subject will be stricken Q: When where you born?
A: January 1, 1990
Objection: HEARSAY Objection: LACK OF FIRST-HAND Q: Where were you born?
KNOWLEDGE A: Singalong, Manila
- If the witness’ statement on its - If the witness purports to be stating Q: And your parents were Jose Ramos and Epifania Reyes?
face makes it clear that the matters which he personally observed, A: YES
witness is merely repeating but he is actually repeating statements of
what someone else said by others
- often, objection is due to the fact - Witness’s statement literally sounds as if
that it came from an it comes from the witness’ own
ANONYMOUS INFORMANT knowledge
SECTION 23. Disqualification by Reason of Marriage.— During their marriage, the husband or the wife cannot testify against the other without the consent of
the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants. (22a)
MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE: iii. descendants

1. Foster Marital Harmony
a. prevent a witness spouse from being placed in cruel dilemma: Q: What if spouses are not parties against each other, but mere witnesses against each
choose between contempt, perjury or betrayal of their spouse other?
b. husband and wife are one. Interests are identical A: PROHIBITED: “cannot testify against the other”
2. protection against spousal testimony
3. during their marriage (not applicable when marriage is annulled) - If the testimony for or against the other spouse is offered during the existence of
4. Spouses cannot testify against each other the marriage, it does not matter if the facts subject of the testimony occurred
a. COVERAGE: or came to the knowledge of the witness spouse before the marriage
i. Testimony: sub poena testificandum o Affected spouse may still invoke the rule by objecting to the testimony as
ii. Production of documents or objects: subpoena duces long as it is offered during the marriage
tecum
5. Waiver: consent of affected spouse OBJECTIONS TO MARITAL PRIVILEGES MUST BE RAISED BY THE CONTRARY
6. Husband or wife cannot testify against SPOUSE THEMSELVES
a. Exception
i. civil case by one against the other (not for)
ii. criminal case for a crime committed against:
1. the other
2. latter’s direct descendants Additional Exception:
3. direct ascendants ALVAREZ v. RAMIREZ
40
- Exception: IN CIVIL ACTIONS BETWEEN THE SPOUSES AND IN o Proceedings involve an issue as to the personal violence on the part of
CRIMINAL CASES FOR OFFENSES COMMITED BY ONE AGAINST THE the one toward the other
OTHER o Suit by one spouse against a physician for malpractice in treating the
other spouse
Requisites: o Wife/husband may testify where the other spouse is a party to prove the
DURING TESTIMONY, PROVE: contents of lost trucks/package, there being no other evidence of the
1. valid marriage fact
2. marriage is existing
3. other spouse is a party to the action EXCEPTIONS:
4. civil/criminal action 1. iN A CIVIL CASE BY ONE AGAINST THE OTHER
2. IN A CRIMINAL CASE FOR A CRIME COMMITTED BY ONE AGAINST THE
RIGHT CAN BE WAIVED: OTHER OR THE LATTER’S DIRECT DESCENDANTS OR ASCENDANTS
Failure to make timely objection to offer and admission of testimony:

PEOPLE v. PANSENSOY ORDOÑO v. DAQUIGAN
- The objection to the competency of the spouse must be made when he or she - wife may testify against husband in case of rape committed by husband
is first offered as a witness against their daughter
Timely objection made: Marriage entitled to marital privilege:

PEOPLE v. QUIDATO, JR. VALID: at the time of the testimony
Strained marital relations: LEZAMA v. RODRIGQUEZ

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO - wife cannot even be called as an adverse witness against herself where the
- where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there are no interest of the spouses are inseparable
more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be
disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails
NOTE: Despite disguising testimony to be one of a hostile witness, marital privilege and
disqualification should prevail, unless their interests are separate and separable
Exceptions: NECESSITY:
- situations can authorize the spouse to testify against the other spouse:
PRIVILEDGED COMMUNICATION:
SECTION 24. Disqualification by Reason of Privileged Communication[s].— The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
following cases:
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received
in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed
by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.
(b) An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client to be licensed to engage in the practice of law cannot, without the consent of the client,
be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her,or his or her advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk, or other persons assisting the attorney be examined without
the consent of the client and his or her employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity, except in the
following cases:
(i) Furtherance of crime or fraud.If the services or advice of the 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;
41
(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 claims are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos transaction;
(iii) Breach 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 clients.As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two [(2)] 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.
(c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by the patient to be authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy cannot in a civil
case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any confidential communication made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's
physical, mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction, between the patient and his or her physician or psychotherapist. This privilege
also applies to persons, including members of the patient's family, who have participated in the diagnosis or treatment of the patient under the direction
of the physician or psychotherapist.
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 a psychologist by the government while similarly engaged.
(d) A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be so cannot, without the consent of the affected person, be examined as to any
communication or confession made to or any advice given by him or her, in his or her professional character, in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs.
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during or after his or her tenure as to communications made to him or her in official confidence,
when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
The communication shall remain privileged, even in the hands of a third person who may have obtained the information, provided that the original parties
to the communication took reasonable precaution to protect its confidentiality.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION 2. This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and
- those disclosures upon the witness stand that is not compellable or even allowable, satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties
owing to certain confidential relations existing between the parties 3. The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community
- relevant evidence is rejected on the ground that an extrinsic policy is more ought to be sedulous fostered.
important than the fact finder’s consideration of the excluded evidence 4. The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the
- excluded because their disclosure would be inimical to a government interest or to communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for
a private relationship that courts and legislature deem worthy of preserving the correct disposal of litigation
PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE:
GROUNDS FOR EXCLUSION: - to facilitate and make safe full and confidential disclosure by the patient to the
1. PUBLIC POLICY physician of all facts, circumstances and symptoms, untrammeled by
2. PUBLIC NECESSITY apprehension of their subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on
the witness stand, to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion,
and be enabled safely and efficaciously to treat his patient
FUNDAMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS: - MAY BE WAIVED if no timely objection is made to the physician’s testimony
LIM v. CA - Requisites:
- These requisites conform with the four fundamental conditions necessary for 1. the privilege is claimed in a civil and criminal case
the establishment of a privilege against the disclosure of certain 2. the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly
communications, to wit: authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics (not one
1. The communications must originate in a confidence that they will who has an expired license)
not be disclosed.
42
3.such person acquired the information while he was attending to Section 23: Disqualification by Section 24 (a): Disqualification by
the patient in his professional capacity REASON OF MARRIAGE (Spousal REASON OF MARITAL PRIVILEGE
4. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that Immunity) (Marital Privileged
capacity Communication)
5. the information was confidential, and, if. disclosed, would blacken - can be invoked if both spouses are a - can be claimed whether or not
the reputation of the patient party to the action the other spouse is a party to the
- INFORMATION GATHERED IN THE PRESENCE OF THIRD PARTIES, NOT action
PRIVILEGED - applies only if the marriage is existing - can be claimed even after the
at the time of the testimony marriage is dissolves
- constitutes a prohibition against the - applies only to confidential
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: spouse of the witness communications between the
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO v. REVILLA spouses
- the introduction in evidence of part of a paper writing by one party waives - objection raised is based on the - married person is on the stand
privilege as to other parts of the same writing ground of marriage. Married witness but the objection of privilege is
would not be allowed to take the stand raised when the confidential
because of the disqualification on marital communication is
Lawyer-Client privilege: testimonies against the spouse inquired into
UY CHICO v. UNION LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY
- Communications made by a client to his attorney for the purpose of being - not limited to letters or written documents, oral expressions
communication to others are nor privileged after they have been so o acts done by a spouses SUREPTITIOUSLY OR INTENTIONALLY, acting
communication, and may be proved by the testimony of the attorney. not in confidence with other spouse: NOT CONFIDENTIAL
o applies to a compromise agreement perfected by the attorney with COMMUNICATION
the authority and under the instructions of his client
Exception:
OTHER INCIDENTS OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS: DYING DECLARATION
1. Article 233, Labor Code: information/statements in conciliation proceedings
2. Section 3(h), RA 9285, ADR Law of 2004: Confidentiality
3. Section 5, RA 9194, Anti-Money Laundering Act of 201: reporting covered or
suspicious transactions REASONABLE BELIEF:
4. Article 290-292, Revised Penal Code: Discovering secrets through seizure of - recognition of REASONABLE BELIEF of the person whom them consulted in a
correspondence, revelation of secrets with abuse of office and revelation of confidential capacity was actually either a lawyer, physician or priest
industrial secrets
5. RA 11258: Exempting Broadcast Journalist and News Agencies from
Revealing the Source of Published News or Information Obtained in Hostile Witness; Dying declaration of husband:
Confidence Objected to as privileged
US v. ANTIPOLO
TRIAL TECHNIQUE: - when a person at the point of death as a result of injuries he has suffered
Ground for Objection: Information is PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
makes a statement regarding the manner in which he received those injuries,
the communication so made is in no sense confidential
(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be o such communication is made for the express purpose that it may be
examined without the consent of the other as to any communication communication after the death of the declarant to the authorities
received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except concerned in inquiring into the cause of death
in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or
ascendants. Documents included in the privilege:
ZULUETA v. CA
43
(b) An attorney or person reasonably believed by the client to be licensed necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of
to engage in the practice of law cannot, without the consent of the client, the purpose for which it was give
be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her,or 3. ABSENCE OF CONSENT from the:
a. client to the attorney’s testimony
his or her advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
b. of both client and employer
professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, c. communication in the presence of his secretary, stenographer or
or clerk, or other persons assisting the attorney be examined without the clerk or other persons assisting the attorney may not testify regarding
consent of the client and his or her employer, concerning any fact the the cases between the lawyer and client
knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity, except in the d. confidential agent hired by lawyer/client, privilege attaches
following cases:
(i) Furtherance of crime or fraud.If the services or advice of the NOT PRIVILEGED:
lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to - when documents are notarized
commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably - information gained in a casual manner
should have known to be a crime or fraud;
Conservation of Client’s secrets: PUBLIC POLICY
(ii) Claimants through same deceased client.As to a
communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim BURDEN OF PROOF: ONE WHO SEEKS TO ELIMINATE THE TESTIMONY
through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the
claims are by testate or intestate or by inter vivos transaction; Court may, motu prorprio, raise the right to the privilege by the lawyer
(iii) Breach 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
Privilege is PERPETUAL:
the lawyer is an attesting witness; or
- remains forever
(v) Joint clients.As to a communication relevant to a matter of o unless removed by the parties themselves
common interest between two [(2)] or more clients if the - does not cease with the termination of the suit
communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or o not affected by:
consulted in common, when offered in an action between any of ▪ party’s ceasing to employ the attorney and retaining another
the clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise. ▪ any change of relation between them
▪ death of the lawyer or client
Code of Professional Responsibility - may be claimed by the client’s executor or administration as against a stranger
after the client’s death
REQUISITES: - even after the death of the attorney, the client could not be required to disclose
1. ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION the privilege matter
a. REASONABLE BELIEF by the client that a person is licensed to
engage in the practice of law
2. CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION that transpired in the course of JIMENEZ v. FRANCISCO
professional employment: Factors for the existence of a lawyer-client privilege:
a. private conversations regarding the cases/business for which he is 1. There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a prospective attorney-
employed client relationship, and it is by reason of this relationship that the client
b. civil and criminal cases made the communication
c. active and passive 2. The client made the communication in confidence
d. words uttered, actions, signs, personal appearances 3. The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his professional
refers to information transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between capacity
attorney and client in confidence and by means which, so far as the client is
aware, discloses the information to no third person other than one reasonably
Sanctions:
44
- Administrative Lawyers were included as party-defendant in SB case against E. Cojuangco, Jr. (ill-
o Bar discipline gotten wealth)
- Criminal REGALA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
o RPC 209: Betrayal of Trust
- RA 10365: Anti-Money Laundering Act
EXCEPTION: CLAIMANTS THROUGH THE SAME DECEASED CLIENT

Existence of Lawyer-Client Privilege Pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer:
NOT PRIVILEGED (ii) Claimants through same deceased client.As to a communication
CASTILLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same
deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or
Q: May judge, as a lawyer, be covered? intestate or by inter vivos transaction;
A: YES. When gives legal advice. Not the lack compensation or payment of retainer’s
fees will remove the right to the privilege - lawyer-client privilege survives the death of the client
o Exception: Lawyer can be examined on communications regarding a
claim against a deceased client whether the claim is:
▪ Testate
▪ Intestate
• will contest
• other case between parties who both claim against
deceased client
Reason:
EXCEPTION: CRIME OF FRAUD
- it is not known who stands in the shoes of the deceased client
- lawyer’s information on deceased client may be essential to:
(i) Furtherance of crime or fraud.If the services or advice of the lawyer
o an accurate resolution of competing claims of succession
were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to o testator would presumably favor disclosure of communications in order to
commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a dispose of his estate is accord with his intentions
crime or fraud;
in aid of future crime Lawyer’s duty to inform the court of the death of client:
BARRAMEDA v. BARBARA
- information is on past crimes: for defense purposes, covered by the privilege
- clients are not entitled to use lawyers to help them in pursuing unlawful or Lawyer-Client relationship is terminated upon the death of either; Privilege is NOT:
fraudulent objective LAWAS v. CA
o if lawyer knew:
▪ he may be criminally liable as a participant in the crime:
conspiracy
▪ duty to disclose (iii) Breach of duty by lawyer or client.As to a communication relevant to
▪ administratively liable: violation of Lawyer’s Oath an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client. or by the
- if the privilege will cloak such activity, it will result in lack of public trust and client to his or her lawyer;
confidence and corruption of the legal profession
Lawyer-client privilege does not apply:
- dispute between lawyer and client on the legal services rendered by the
PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN lawyer
- privilege must be for a lawful purpose
Example: Client alleges breach of duty by lawyer
45
- lawyer or client may testify as to communications between them which should physician or psychotherapist. This privilege also applies to persons,
otherwise be privileged including members of the patient's family, who have participated in the
o information should not be the totality of the information revealed diagnosis or treatment of the patient under the direction of the physician
▪ should refer to the breach or psychotherapist.
“SELF-DEFENSE” PRIVILEGE - would black the reputation of the patient
- Client impliedly waives the privilege by making allegations of breach of duty against
the lawyer “…persons, including members of the patient’s family”
KROHN v. CA
(iv) Document attested by the lawyer.As to a communication relevant to Requisites:
an issue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an 1. the privilege is claimed in a civil and criminal case
attesting witness; or 2. the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to
practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics (not one who has an expired license)
3. such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in
his professional capacity
4. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity
(v) Joint clients.As to a communication relevant to a matter of common 5. the information was confidential, and, if. disclosed, would blacken the reputation
interest between two [(2)] or more clients if the communication was made of the patient
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 PRIVILEGE DOES NOT APPLY:
- if communication was made in a testimony by a doctor testifying in court
expressly agreed otherwise.
against an accused not his patient
- medical examination is for a life insurance evaluation
- joint clients do not intend their communications to be confidential from each other
o their communications are made in each other’s presence
Actual treatment is not required.
- agreeing to joint representation means that each joint client accepts the risk that
another joint client may later use what she has said to the lawyer
“patient’s privilege”
- NOT PRIVILEGED
- if patient allows the testimony, it will be received by the court
- may be waived by guardian provided it redounds to the best interest of the ward
HILADO v. DAVID
WAIVED:
To constitute professional employment, it is not essential that:
1. Failure to object
- the client should have employed the attorney professionally on any previous
2. Patient testifying on his condition
occasion
3. Voluntary testimony
- any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for
4. Calls physician to testify on patient’s condition
- the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the
5. Disclosure to others of condition
consultation was had
6. Insurance: contestability clause
(c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by the A "psychotherapist" is:

patient to be authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy cannot in (a) A person licensed to practice medicine engaged in the
a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition, or
confidential communication made for the purpose of diagnosis or (b) A person licensed as a psychologist by the government while
treatment of the patient's physical, mental or emotional condition, similarly engaged.
including alcohol or drug addiction, between the patient and his or her
46
- A psychotherapist has a special need to maintain confidentiality - communications in official confidence
o his capacity to help his patients is completely dependent upon their - when the court finds that PUBLIC INTEREST would suffer by the
willingness and ability to talk freely DISCLOSURE
- not just during the TERM OF OFFICE, but during the TENURE
Sub poena duces tecum

Recorded are included in the privilege: Public Officer: Judiciary Included:
CHAN v. CHAN IN RE: PRODUCTION OF COURT RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS AND THE
- to allow the disclosure during discovery procedure of the hospital records ATTENDANCE OF COURT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES
would be to allow access to evidence that is inadmissible without the patient’s
consent
Government/Military Documents:
Executive and Judicial Privileges of Communication
BLUE CROSS HEALTH CASE, INC. v. OLIVARES ALMONTE v. VASQUEZ
DOCTOR-PATIENT PRIVILEGE: does not apply if:
1. the evidence is at the disposal of both parties
2. suppression was not willful
3. mere corroborative or cumulative The communication shall remain privileged, even in the hands of a third
4. suppression is an exercise of a privilege person who may have obtained the information, provided that the
original parties to the communication took reasonable precaution to
protect its confidentiality.
PRIEST/MINISTER/PASTOR – PENITENT PRIVILEGE:
GENERAL PROVISION THAT APPLIED TO ALL PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
- not just between the parties but extends to ALL THIRD PERSONS who may
(d) A minister, priest or person reasonably believed to be so cannot, have obtained the information
without the consent of the affected person, be examined as to any o provided that the original parties to the communication took
communication or confession made to or any advice given by him or her, REASONABLE PRECAUTION to protect its confidentiality
in his or her professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined
by the church to which the minister or priest belongs.
BARTON v. LEYTE ASPHALT AND MINERAL OiL CO., LTD.
1. Communication
2. Confession
3. Advise PEOPLE v. CARLOS
- where a privileged communication from one spouse to another comes into the
Privilege is lost: WHEN CONSENT IS GIVEN BY THE AFFECTED PERSON hands of a third party, whether legally or not, without collusion and voluntary
disclosure on the part of either of the spouses, the PRIVILEGED IS THEREBY
EXTINGUISHED and the communication becomes admissible.
- Requisites:
PUBLIC OFFICER: o privileged information
o comes into the hands of a third party
(e) A public officer cannot be examined during or after his or her o legally or not
tenure as to communications made to him or her in official confidence, o without collusion
when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the o voluntary disclosure
disclosure. o part of every either of the spouses
o privileged is extinguished
Public officer: o communication becomes admissible
- cannot be examined
- during/after tenure
47
2. Testimonial Privilege
SECTION 25. Parental and Filial Privilege.— No person shall be compelled to testify against his or her parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
descendants, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against that person or by one parent against the other.
NCC 315 PROHIBITION ON TESTIMONY:

Family Code, Art. 215 1. PARENTS
2. DIRECT ASCENDANTS
- to preserve family cohesion 3. CHILDREN
- both parental (descendants) and filial (ascendants) privileges are enjoined by 4. DIRECT DESCENDANTS
any person if coerced to testify against any of his or her parents, other direct - no qualifications as to legitimate/illegitimate
ascendants or other direct descendants - Not included: BROTHERS AND SISTERS
SECTION 26. Privilege Relating to Trade Secrets.— A person cannot be compelled to testify about any trade secret, unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud
or otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective measure as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and of the
parties and the furtherance of justice may require.
NCC 28
- On proper objection: AIR PHILIPPINES CORP. v. PENNSWELL, INC.

o A person cannot be obliged to relay, information and testify Factors to determine if an information is a trade secret:
o about trade secrets 1. the extent to which the information is known outside of the employer’s
▪ Except: business
• when suppression thereof will work injustice 2. the extent to which the information is known by employees and others involved
- When constrained to reveal trade secrets: in the business
o The court must utilize measures to protect the owner of the trade secrets 3. the extent of measures taken by the employer to guard the secrecy of the
and their parties information
4. value of the information to the employer and to competitors
TRADE SECRETS COVERED: 5. amount of effort or money expended by the company in developing the
1. FORMULAS OF MANUFACTURE information
2. PRICELISTS 6. extent to which the information could be easily or readily obtained through an
3. CUSTOMER’S LIST independent source
NOT ABSOLUTE
- Trial court may compel disclosure where it is indispensable for doing justice BANK DEPOSITS: PRIVILEGE/RIGHT TO SECRECY
Exceptions:
PNB v. GANCAYCO
WILLAWARE PRODUCTS CORP v. JESICHRIS MANUFACTURING CORP absolutely confidential
48
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. PURISIMA
READY FORM, INC v. CASTILLON JR.
3. Admissions and Confessions
SECTION 27. Admission of a Party.— The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her.(26a)
ADMISSION: interest with him, is party to the - competent in any action to which it
- any extra-judicial statement or conduct (act or omission) by a party that is action must have been, when made, to the
inconsistent with the position the party takes - need not have been considered by knowledge of the declarants
- voluntary acknowledgment by a party of the existence of the truth of certain facts the declarant as opposed to his
which are inconsistent with his claims in an action interest at the time when it was made - against his obvious and real
o need not necessarily be interest
against the interest of one o declaration must be
CLASSIFICATION OF ADMISSION: who made the admission against the declarant’s
JUDICIAL Formal: made in writing (pleadings, motions, stipulations interest
ADMISSION of facts)
Informal: made orally (in the course or a party’s or a
wtiness’ testimony, depositions, affidavits, statements of ADMISSION CONFESSION
counsel - applied to: - acknowledgment of guilt in
EXTRAJUDICIAL Express: made in a definite, certain and unequivocal o civil transactions criminal case
ADMISSION language o matters of fact in criminal cases
Implied: those which may be inferred from the act, not involving criminal intent
conduct, declaration, silence or omission of a party
- payment of interest = acknowledges the debt
- flight/escape of accused = shows guilt JUDICAL ADMISSION EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSION
ADMISSION BY
- made in pleadings filed - made out of court
SILENCE
- or in the progress of a trial o no case filed yet
o as dispense with the
ANGARA DIARY CASE (ESTRADA v. DESIERTO)
▪ introduction of evidence
ADMISSIONS:
otherwise
Reason for Admission and Exclusion to Hearsay Rule
▪ some rules of practice
Admission v. Declaration Against Interest
necessary to be
Admission v. Confession
observed and complied
Admission: Judicial v. Extra-judicial
with
Adoptive Admission
- CONCLUSIVE: strictly, judicial - DISPUTABLE: as a rule and
admissions are CONCLUSIVE upon the where the elements of
ADMISSION DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST estoppel are not present,
party making them
- Primary Evidence - Secondary Evidence disputable
- maybe made any time before or - must have been made before the
during the trial controversy ADOPTIVE ADMISSION:
- receivable although the declarant is - receivable only when the declarant - a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable
available as a witness is unavailable as a witness to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or impliedly by
o not necessary to show that other person
the one who admitted is - basis for admissibility: arising from the ratification or adoption by the party of the
unable to testify statements which the other person had made
- competent only when the declarant, - CRIMINAL APPLICATION: In the hearing of the defendant, the prosecution is
or someone identified in legal generally permitted in a criminal case, to prove that an accusatory statement was
49
made and that the defendant’s response was such as to justify the interference - UNCOUNSELED CONFESSION CANNOT CONVICT.
that he agreed with or adopted the accusation - ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR
- may be: o that the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than
o SIMPLE SILENCE the admission itself
o EQUIVOCAL RESPONSE o that the admission relates to the common objects
o EXPRESS AFFIRMATIVE AGREEMENT o that it has been made while declarant was engaged in
o CONDUCT carrying out the conspiracy
PEOPLE V. SURIGAWAN
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
SECTION 28. Offer of Compromise Not Admissible.— In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible
in evidence against the offeror. Neither is evidence of conduct nor statements made in compromise negotiations admissible, except evidence otherwise
discoverable or offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct
a criminal investigation or prosecution.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the
accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
A plea of guilty later withdrawn or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense is not admissible in evidence against the accused who made
the plea or offer. Neither is any statement made in the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution, which does not result in a plea of guilty or which results in
a plea of guilty later withdrawn, admissible.
An offer to pay[,] or the payment of medical, hospital or other expenses occasioned by an injury[,] is not admissible in evidence as proof of civil or criminal
liability for the injury.
- An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an

ADR proceedings: Court-Annexed Mediation and/or Judicial Dispute Resolution implied admission of guilt
OFF THE RECORD STATEMENTS
PEOPLE v. MAGDADARO y GERANO
SECTION 29. Admission by Third Party.— The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.
GEVERO v. IAC
- Right of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of
another
- RES INTER ALIAS ACTA ALTERIA NON DEBET: where one derives title
to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while
holding the title, in relation to the property is evidence against the former
- Admission of the former owner of a property must have been made while he
was the owner thereof in order that such admission may be binding upon the
present owner
SECTION 30. Admission by Co-Partner or Agent.— The act or declaration of a partner or agent authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the
subject,or within the scope of his or her authority[,] and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the
50
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or
other person jointly interested with the party.
SECTION 31. Admission by Conspirator.— The act or declaration of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy and during its existence may be given
in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. (30a)
ADMISSION OF A CONSPIRATOR MAY BE RECEIVED AGAINST HIS CO- GARDINER v. MAGSALIN

CONSPIRATOR - after proof of a conspiracy
1. that the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission o the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy may be
itself given in evidence
2. that the admission relates to the common objects - exception to the “res inter alios” rule
3. that it has been made while declarant was engaged in carrying out the - refers to an extrajudicial declaration of a conspirator – not to his testimony by way
conspiracy of direct evidence
EXCEPTION TO ADMISSION BY THIRD PARTY: ADMISSON BY CONSPIRATOR

Requisites: PEOPLE v. CIOBAL y PABRUA
PEOPLE v. TENA - must relate to the conspiracy and during its existence
o admissions of the appellants in this case appear to have been made after
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere no debet: the existence of the conspiracy
- a transaction between others does not prejudice one who was not a party to it o there is no independent proof of such conspiracy other than such
- things done between strangers must not cause an injury to peole who are not admissions
parties to such acts o conspiracy has not been established
SECTION 32. Admission by Privies.— Where one derives title to property from another, the latter's act, declaration, or omission, in relation to the property,
is evidence against the former [if done] while the latter was holding the title.
SECTION 33. Admission by Silence.— An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing
when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him or her to do so, may be given
in evidence against him or her.(32a)
Requisites; ADMISSION BY SILENCE: ADMISSION BY SILENCE:

PEOPLE v. CIOBAL y PABRUA - applies to adverse statements in writing if the party was carrying on mutual
1. He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other person correspondence with the declarant
2. He must have had opportunity to deny it
3. He must have understood the statement
4. He must have an interest to object as he would naturally have done if the
statement was not true RELAXED when:
5. The facts are within his knowledge - statement is not made orally in one’s presence
6. The fact admitted or the interference to be drawn from his silence is material - one still has to resort to a written reply
to the issue - there is no mutual correspondence between the parties
VILLANUEVA v. BALAGUER
One cannot prove his claim by placing the burden of proof on the other party. SPOUSES PAMPLONA V. SPOUSE CUETO
51
- ADMISSION BY SILENCE: the act of declaration made in the presence and within
the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing may be admitted US v. BAY
as evidence against a party who fails to refute or reject it - The unexplained silence of a man surprised in company with a woman by whom
he is there and then charged with rape, under circumstances which would naturally
call for an indignant denial of such a charge by an innocent man, is evidence
ABALLE v. SANTIAGO tending to establish his guilt of the crime thus charged.
- The rule that a material evidence presented by plaintiff is deemed impliedly
admitted if not denied by defendant in his answer, specifically stated that he had
no knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained PEOPLE v. PARAGSA
therein, and, at the trial, denied all the statements made by plaintiff, as well
documentary evidence presented.
PEOPLE v. MAGDADARO y GERONA
- Silent is assent as well as consent, and may, where a direct and specific
DEAD MAN’S STATUTE accusation of crime is made, be regarded under some circumstances as a quasi-
BORDALBA v. CA confession.
- NOT APPLICABLE TO TESTIMONY BASED ON JUDICIAL PARTITION AND - An innocent person will at once naturally and emphatically repel and accusation of
OTHER DOCUMENTS: The dead man’s statute does not operate to close the crime, as a matter of self-preservation and self-defense, and as a precaution
mouth of a witness as to any matter of fact coming to his knowledge in any other against prejudicing himself
way than through personal dealings with the deceased person, or communication - A person’s silence, therefore, particularly when it is persistent, will justify an
made by the deceased to the witness. interference that he is not innocent
SECTION 34. Confession.— The declaration of an accused acknowledging his or her guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein,
may be given in evidence against him or her.
CONFESSIONS: the confession, and when speaking is so free from influence affecting the will of the
- statement by the accused that he engaged in conduct which constitutes a crime accused, at the time the confession was made, that it renders it admissible in evidence
- acknowledgement in expressed words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the against him
truth of the offense charge or some essential parts thereof - May be inferred from its language: upon its face, the confession
o exhibits no suspicious circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its
Extrajudicial confession must be VOLUNTARY: integrity, it being
FORMAT: o replete with details which could only be supplied by the accused reflecting
PEOPLE v. SATORRE spontaneity and coherence
ADMISSION CONFESSION EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION forms but:

1. a prima facie case against the party whom it is made
- act, declaration or - declaration of an accused acknowledging his
2. not conclusive proof of what they state; it may be proved that they were uttered in
omission of a party as to guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
ignorance, or levity, or mistake, and hence, they are, at best to be regarded as only
relevant fact necessarily included therein
cumulative proof which affords but a precarious support and on which, when
- may be given in evidence against a person admitting or confessing uncorroborated, a verdict cannot be permitted to rest
If made freely and voluntarily, confession constitutes evidence of a high order since FORM: no particular form
it is supported by the strong presumption that no sane person or one of normal mind - may be oral or written, formal or informal
will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime, unless - may be recorded on video tape, sound motion pictures, or tape
prompted by truth and conscience
ADMISSIBILITY: GENERAL RULE:
VOLUNTARY: the accused speaks of his free will and accord without inducement of - ONLY AGAINST THE ACCUSED WHO MADE IT
any kind, and with a full and complete knowledge of the nature and consequences of
52
o not against his co-accused → hearsay and res inter alios acta 4. when the co-accused against whom an extrajudicial confession is offered had by
his acts, conducts and declaration adopted the confession as his own
EXCEPTION: WHEN CONFESSION IS ADMISSIBLE TO THE ACCUSED:
1. when the confession of an accused implication his co-accused is made judicially
at a joint trial PEOPLE v. TALLEDO
2. when extrajudicial statements implicating a co-accused are repeated in open court
because the accused has a chance to cross-examine
3. when the offer in evidence of an extrajudicial confession against the accused is
not objected to
4. Previous Conduct [a]s Evidence
SECTION 35. Similar Acts as Evidence.— Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or did not
do the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage,
and the like.
PEOPLE v. DADLE 1. tends directly to establish the particular crime

2. competent to prove the motive, the intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a
GENERAL RULE: Evidence is not admissible which shows or tends to show, that the common scheme or plan
accused in a criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent of the offense 3. embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that
for which he is on trial proof of one tends to establish the other
- not competent to prove that he committed other crimes of a like nature for the 4. identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial
purpose of showing that he is committed the crime charged in the complaint or
information
EXCEPTION: When such evidence:
SECTION 36. Unaccepted Offer.— An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a written instrument or specific personal property is, if rejected
without valid cause, equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property.
[SECTION 36. Testimony Generally Confined to Personal Knowledge; Hearsay Excluded.— (Transposed to Sec. 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge.)]
53

Midterms Evidence Alar As Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Midterms Evidence Alar As Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Midterms Evidence Alar As Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TALACTAC EVIDENCE 3DD JUDGE ALARAS NOTES

- exists, either in the material world as matter or that of the mind

Not apply to (except by analogy or in suppletory character and whenever practicable

JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE: only of those matters which are “commonly” known

Stages when judicial notice may be taken:

“on the propriety of taking judicial notice” BORROMEO v. MINA

1. MOTU PROPRIO CANDELARIA v. PEOPLE

BANK OF COMMERCE v. HEIRS OF DELA CRUZ TRINIDAD y BERSAMIN v. PEOPLE

RULE 130: Rules of Admissibility

1. REAL/ OBJECT - not visual alone

OBJECT (REAL) Physical Evidence is

A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

OBJECT/DEMONSTRATIVE/AUTOPTIC PREFERENCE: evident of one’s own senses

ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE:

1. Original Document Rule

FLORES y DE LEON v. PEOPLE

HEIRS OF PRODON v. ALVAREZ

(a) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court,

SECTION 4. Original of Document.—

(b) A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as

NPC v. CODILLA, JR. AUTHENTICATION [of telephone conversation]

ADVERSE PARTY: A: No. Section 9, Rule 130.

Sec. 3(d), Rule 130, 2019 Rule of Court:

- prevent the loss of public records due to removals

3. Parol Evidence Rule

PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE:

IMPORTANT: “SUBSTITENCE OF A CONTRACT THAT IS LEGALLY BINDING AND INTRINSIC AMBIGUITY:

REPUBLIC v. CA Q: Can extrajudicial settlement qualify as testimonial evidence?

Relationship: SAN LUIS v. ROJAS

MARCOS v, HEIRS OF NAVARRO, JR.

RELIGIOUS BELIEF, POLITICAL IDEOLOGY: Mental Retardation; Feeble Minded:

INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE CRIME:

PROPOSED RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD WITNESS

SECTION 5. Guardian Ad Litem. —

SECTION 9. Interpreter for Child. —

SECTION 10. Facilitator to Pose Questions to Child. —

SECTION 11. Support Persons. —

SECTION 27. Videotaped Deposition. —

SECTION 30. Sexual Abuse Shield Rule. —

DISQUALIFICATIONS UNDER THE 2019 AMENDMENTS:

▪ of his/her own personal knowledge

MARITAL DISQUALIFICATION RULE: iii. descendants

Failure to make timely objection to offer and admission of testimony:

Timely objection made: Marriage entitled to marital privilege:

Strained marital relations: LEZAMA v. RODRIGQUEZ

EXCEPTION: CLAIMANTS THROUGH THE SAME DECEASED CLIENT

(c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by the A "psychotherapist" is:

Sub poena duces tecum

NCC 315 PROHIBITION ON TESTIMONY:

- On proper objection: AIR PHILIPPINES CORP. v. PENNSWELL, INC.

- An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an

OFF THE RECORD STATEMENTS

PEOPLE v. MAGDADARO y GERANO

ADMISSION OF A CONSPIRATOR MAY BE RECEIVED AGAINST HIS CO- GARDINER v. MAGSALIN

EXCEPTION TO ADMISSION BY THIRD PARTY: ADMISSON BY CONSPIRATOR

Requisites; ADMISSION BY SILENCE: ADMISSION BY SILENCE:

ADMISSION CONFESSION EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION forms but:

4. Previous Conduct [a]s Evidence

PEOPLE v. DADLE 1. tends directly to establish the particular crime