Anda di halaman 1dari 41

Qualification of Witnesses

Sec 20. Witnesses; their qualifications

There is no substantive or procedural rule which requires a witness for a party to present some
form of authorization to testify as a witness for the party presenting him or her. No law or
AFP Retirement and
Authorization to testify NOT jurisprudence would support the conclusion that such omission can be considered as a failure
Separation Benefits System v
necessary to prosecute on the part of the party presenting such witness. All that the Rules require of a
Republic
witness is that the witness possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
provided therein.

Since witness Francisco Manalo is not convicted of any crimes mentioned in Art 821 of the
Having pending criminal Civil Code to disqualify him as a witness and this case does not involve the probate of a will,
charges while testifying We rule that the fact that said witness is facing several criminal charges when he testified did
People v Umali
DOES NOT disqualify a not in any way disqualify him as a witness. In the absence of any evidence that witness
witness Francisco Manalo was actuated by improper motive, his testimony must be accorded full
credence.

The inability to hear and speak may prevent a deaf-mute from communicating orally with others
but he/she may still communicate with others in writing or through signs and symbols and, as
Deaf-mutes NOT
People v Aleman in this case, sketches. Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses where they (1) can understand
automatically disqualified
and appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) can comprehend facts they are going to testify on;
and (3) can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter. URUBIO

Although Mary Grace was mentally retarded, her testimony cannot be discredited. All persons
who can perceive, and perceiving can make known their perception to others, may be
Mere intellectual weakness witnesses. Mere intellectual weakness of a witness is not a ground to disqualify, or at the very
People v Hamto NOT a ground for least discredit, a witness. The intellectual weakness of Mary Grace does not make her
disqualification incompetent as a witness if, at the time she testified, she had the mental capacity to distinguish
between right and wrong, understand the nature and obligation of an oath, and give a fairly
intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matters about which she testifies.

One may be insane, yet be capable in law of giving competent testimony. The general rule is
Unsoundness of mind DOES that lunatics or persons affected with insanity are admissible as witnesses, if they have
People v Deauna NOT per se render a witness sufficient understanding to apprehend the obligation of an oath and are capable of giving
incompetent correct accounts of the matters that they have seen or heard with respect to the questions at
issue.

Rule on Examination of a Child Witness

That the witness is a child cannot be the sole reason for disqualification. The dismissiveness
Child is presumed qualified to with which the testimonies of child witnesses were treated in the past has long been erased.
People v Esugon
be a witness Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, every child is now presumed qualified to
be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 1 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
child's competency. Only when 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 will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a competency
examination of a child.

We cannot take Rachel's testimony lightly simply because she was a mere child when she
witnessed the incident and when she gave her testimony in court. There is no showing that her
mental maturity rendered her incapable of testifying and of relating the incident truthfully.
People v Ibanez
Petitioners' flimsy objections on Rachel's lack of education and inability to read and tell time
carry no weight and cannot overcome the clear and convincing testimony of Rachel as to who
killed her father.

Sec 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity

AAA is totally qualified to take the witness stand notwithstanding her mental condition. During
the continuation of AAA’s testimony, she was able to recall what appellant did to her though in
Mental retardate may be a a soft voice and halting manner. AAA’s simple account of her ordeal clearly reflects sincerity
People v Obogne
credible witness and truthfulness. While it is true that, on cross-examination, AAA faltered in the sequence of
events, this is understandable because even one with normal mental condition would not be
able to recall, with a hundred percent accuracy, events that transpired in the past. URUBIO

The requirements then of a child's competency as a witness are the: (a) capacity of
observation, (b) capacity of recollection, and (c) capacity of communication. And in
ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to the foregoing, it is settled
Child witness may swear an that the trial court is called upon to make such determination.
Dulla v CA oath through questions and In this case, the traditional oath was not administered to the child witness. Immediately upon
answers her presentation in court, the public prosecutor began asking her if she would tell the truth; if
she knew Jesus; and what God would do to her if she would tell a lie. To these questions, she
evinced her desire to tell the truth because if she told a lie, God would get mad, and He would
whip her.

Sec. 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage

Where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be
Strained marital and domestic preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such
relations may justify the non- harmony and tranquility fails. In such a case, identity of interests disappears and the
Alvarez v Ramirez
application of disqualification consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent. Likewise, in such a
by reason of marriage situation, the security and confidences of private life, which the law aims at protecting, will be
nothing but ideals, which through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home.

Objections to the competency of a husband and wife to testify in a criminal prosecution against
People v Pasensoy Disqualification by reason of
the other may be waived as in the case of other witnesses generally. The objection to the
marriage is waivable and is
competency of the spouse must be made when he or she is first offered as a witness. In this

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 2 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
deemed waived in the case, the incompetency was waived by appellant's failure to make a timely objection to the
absence of a timely objection admission of Analie's testimony.

Sec. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party

The object and purpose of the rule is to guard against the temptation to give false testimony in
regard of the transaction in question on the part of the surviving party, and further to put the
two parties to a suit upon terms of equality in regard to the opportunity to giving testimony. If
Tan v CA
one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other
mental disabilities, the other party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own
uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction. URUBIO

Since Pedro is deceased, and Amanda's declaration which pertains to the leasehold
Dead man’s statute – to
agreement affects the 1996 "Kasunduan sa Buwisan ng Lupa" which she as assignor entered
guard against false testimony
into with petitioners, and which is now the subject matter of the present case and claim against
of a surviving party which
Garcia v Vda de Caparas Pedro's surviving spouse and lawful successor in-interest Dominga, such declaration cannot
may go uncontradicted
be admitted and used against the latter, who is placed in an unfair situation by reason of her
because of the other party’s
being unable to contradict or disprove such declaration as a result of her husband-declarant
death or insity
Pedro's prior death.

Furthermore, Sembrano's testimony on behalf of petitioners is about an alleged declaration


against an interest of a person who is dead in an action that is in effect a claim against his
estate. Such a testimony if coming from a party would be barred by the surviving parties rule,
Hko Ah Pao v Ting
or the dead man's statute, in the Rules of Court. And while Sembrano is not a party, he is
practically a surrogate of petitioners since he was the personal accountant of their
predecessor-in-interest and the corporate accountant of the corporation he controlled.

Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication

At any rate, respondent failed to discharge the burden of showing that the LSPA is a privileged
document. Respondent did not present any law or regulation that considers bank documents
such as the LSPA as classified information. Its contention that the Special Purpose Vehicle
Act only requires the creditor-bank to give notice to the debtor of the transfer of his or her
Special Purpose Vehicle act account to a special purpose vehicle, and that the assignee-special purpose vehicle has no
Eagleridge Devt Corp v does not declare financial obligation to disclose other financial documents related to the sale, is untenable. The Special
Cameron Granville 3 documents are privileged Purpose Vehicle Act does not explicitly declare these financial documents as privileged
matters matters. Further, as discussed, petitioners are not precluded from inquiring as to the true
consideration of the assignment, precisely because the same law in relation to Article 1634
allows the debtor to extinguish its debt by reimbursing the assignee-special purpose vehicle of
the actual price the latter paid for the assignment. An assignment of a credit "produce[s] no
effect as against

Trade secrets are considered Section 24 of Rule 130 draws the types of disqualification by reason of privileged
Air Phils Corp v Pennswell
privileged information communication. There are, however, other privileged matters that are not mentioned by Rule
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 3 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
130. Among them are the following: (a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source
of published news; (b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted; (c) trade
secrets; (d) information contained in tax census returns; and (d) bank deposits.
Jurisprudence has consistently acknowledged the private character of trade secrets. There is
a privilege not to disclose one's trade secrets. Foremost, this Court has declared that trade
secrets and banking transactions are among the recognized restrictions to the right of the
people to information as embodied in the Constitution. URUBIO

a. husband and wife

Indeed, the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional
The intimacies between
injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable" is
husband and wife do not
no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's
justify any one of them in
infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only
breaking the drawers and
Zulueta v CA exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful order [from a] court or
cabinets of the other and in
when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of this
ransacking them for any
provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding." A
telltale evidence of marital
person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an
infidelity
individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.

b. attorney and client

Information so received is sacred to the employment to which it pertains, and to permit it to be


An information obtained from used in the interest of another, or, worse still, in the interest of the adverse party, is to strike at
a client by a member or the element of confidence which lies at the basis of, and affords the essential security in, the
Hilado v David assistant of a law firm is relation of attorney and client.
information imparted to the
firm Professional confidence once reposed can never be divested by expiration of professional
employment.

The general rule is, however, qualified by some important exception. 1) Client identity is
privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would implicate
Information relating to the
that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice. 2) Where disclosure
identity of a client may fall
would open the client to civil liability, his identity is privileged. 3) Where the government's
within the ambit of the
lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless, by revealing the client's name, the
privilege when the client's
said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to
Regala v Sandiganbayan name itself has an
convict an individual of a crime, the client's name is privileged.
independent significance,
such that disclosure would Apart from these principal exceptions, there exist other situations which could qualify as
then reveal client exceptions to the general rule. For example, the content of any client communication to a
confidences. lawyer lies within the privilege if it is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which
the client seeks legal assistance. Moreover, where the nature of the attorney-client relationship
has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential, the

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 4 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
identity of the client has been held to be privileged, since such revelation would otherwise
result in disclosure and the entire transaction. Summarizing these exceptions,

The trial court correctly rejected the prosecution's motion to have Exhibit LL further identified
"in the manner that it wanted," i.e., through the proposed testimony of petitioner's counsel,
Atty. Valmonte, who incidentally refused to testify. Aside from covering a subject which
Information communicated squarely falls within the scope of "privileged communication," it would, more importantly, be
which is connected with the tantamount to converting the admission into a confession. It cannot be denied that the contents
Sanvicente v People business for which the client of Exhibit LL, particularly with regard to the details of the shooting communicated by petitioner
retained the services of the to Atty. Valmonte, is privileged because it is connected with the business for which petitioner
lawyer is privileged retained the services of the latter. More specifically, said communication was relayed by
petitioner to Atty. Valmonte in order to seek his professional advice or assistance in relation to
the subject matter of the employment, or to explain something in connection with it, so as to
enable him to better advise his client or manage the litigation. URUBIO

c. person authorized to practice medicine and patient

The rule on confidential communications between physician and patient requires that: a) the
action in which the advice or treatment given or any information is to be used is a civil case; b)
the relation of physician and patient existed between the person claiming the privilege or his
legal representative and the physician; c) the advice or treatment given by him or any
information was acquired by the physician while professionally attending the patient; d) the
information was necessary for the performance of his professional duty; and e) the disclosure
Sterility alone would be of the information would tend to blacken the reputation of the patient.
Gonzales v CA sufficient to blacken the Petitioners do not dispute that the affidavit meets the first four requisites. They assert, however,
reputation of any patient that the finding as to Ricardo Abad's "sterility" does not blacken the character of the deceased.
Petitioners conveniently forget that Ricardo Abad's "sterility" arose when the latter contracted
gonorrhea, a fact which most assuredly blackens his reputation. In fact, given that society holds
virility at a premium, sterility alone, without the attendant embarrassment of contracting a
sexually-transmitted disease, would be sufficient to blacken the reputation of any patient. We
thus hold the affidavit inadmissible in evidence. And the same remains inadmissible in
evidence, notwithstanding the death of Ricardo Abad.

It is to be emphasized that "it is the tenor only of the communication that is privileged. The
mere fact of making a communication, as well as the date of a consultation and the number of
consultations, are therefore not privileged from disclosure, so long as the subject
Information gathered in the
communicated is not stated."
presence of third parties NOT
Lim v CA privileged There is authority to the effect that information elicited during consultation with a physician in
the presence of third parties removes such information from the mantle of the privilege: "Some
courts have held that the casual presence of a third person destroys the confidential nature of
the communication between doctor and patient and thus destroys the privilege, and that under
such circumstances the doctor may testify. Other courts have reached a contrary result."

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 5 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
To allow, however, the disclosure during discovery procedure of the hospital records — the
Allowing disclosure of
results of tests that the physician ordered, the diagnosis of the patient's illness, and the advice
information through discovery
or treatment he gave him — would be to allow access to evidence that is inadmissible without
Chan v Chan procedure is tantamount to
the patient's consent. Physician memorializes all these information in the patient's records.
allowing access to privileged
Disclosing them would be the equivalent of compelling the physician to testify on privileged
information
matters he gained while dealing with the patient, without the latter's prior consent.

f. others

Elements of presidential The three (3) questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege. First, the
communications privilege: communications relate to a "quintessential and non-delegable power" of the President, i.e. the
1. quintessential and power to enter into an executive agreement with other countries. This authority of the President
nondelegable presidential to enter into executive agreements without the concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally
Neri v Senate Committee power been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. Second, the communications are "received" by a
close advisor of the President. Under the "operational proximity" test, petitioner can be
2. operational proximity considered a close advisor, being a member of President Arroyo's cabinet. And third, there is
3. no compelling need and no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and
available elsewhere of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.

The correct reason for the CA's error in considering the actions and agreements during the
conciliation proceedings before the labor arbiter is Article 233 of the Labor Code which states
Information and statements
that "[i]nformation and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as
Pentagon Steel Corp v CA made at conciliation
privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission. Conciliators
proceedings are privileged
and similar of officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at
conciliation proceedings conducted by them."

Sec. 25. Parental and filial privilege

But here Tiu, who invokes the filial privilege, claims that she is the stepmother of petitioner
Stepmother cannot invoke Emma Lee. The privilege cannot apply to them because the rule applies only to "direct"
Lee v CA
filial privilege ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter
has no common ancestry by her stepmother.

As to the competency of Elven to testify, we rule that such is not affected by Section 25, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court, otherwise known as the rule on "filial privilege." This rule is not
Filial privilege refers to the strictly a rule on disqualification because a descendant is not incompetent or disqualified to
People v Invencion privilege NOT to testify which testify against an ascendant. As correctly observed by the lower court, Elven was not
can be invoked or waived compelled to testify against his father; he chose to waive that filial privilege when he voluntarily
testified against Artemio. Elven declared that he was testifying as a witness against his father
of his own accord and only "to tell the truth."

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 6 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
Admissions and Confessions

Sec. 26. Admissions of a party

Self-serving statements are those made by a party out of court advocating his own interest;
Self-serving statements they do not include a party's testimony as a witness in court. Self-serving statements are
inadmissible because of lack inadmissible because the adverse party is not given the opportunity for cross-examination, and
People v Omictin
of opportunity for cross- their admission would encourage fabrication of testimony. This cannot be said of a party's
examination testimony in court made under oath, with full opportunity on the part of the opposing party for
cross-examination.

An admission made in a pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission;
and all proof submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should simply be
ignored by the court, whether objection is interposed the opposite party or not. A party cannot
The allegations, statements, subsequently take a position contrary to, or inconsistent with, his pleadings.
Heirs of Clemeña v. Heirs of or admissions contained in a
Bien pleading are conclusive as Petitioners' newly-contrived assertion that they were never in possession of the land cannot
against the pleader hold up against these pronouncements. As substituting defendants, they were bound by the
admission of Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano, their predecessor in the litigation. Without any
showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission
was made, petitioners cannot now contradict it.

Sec. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible

An offer of compromise by
the accused may be received Appellant's offers to settle the case in exchange for money or land, which were all rejected by
People v Magdadaro
in evidence as an implied Beverlinda's father, were correctly appreciated by the Trial Court as evidential of his culpability.
admission of guilt.

The general rule is an offer of compromise in a civil case is not an admission of liability. Itis not
admissible in evidence against the offeror. If in the course thereof, the party making the offer
admits the existence of an indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle the claim amicably,
then, the admission is admissible to prove such indebtedness. Indeed, an offer of settlement
Admission of indebtedness + is an effective admission of a borrower's loan balance.
Tan v Rodil Enterprises proposal to settle the claim
amicably = admissible In the case at bar, the MeTC and the Court of Appeals properly appreciated petitioner's
admission as an exception to the general rule of inadmissibility. The MeTC found that petitioner
did not contest the existence of the sublease, and his counsel made frank representations
anent the former's liability in the form of rentals. This expressed admission was coupled with
a proposal to liquidate.

If there is neither an It is also worth mentioning that PAL, through its then counsel Atty. Emmanuel Pena and then
PAL v PAL Employees expressed nor implied denial Labor Affairs OIC Atty. Jose C. Blanco, acknowledged its liability to PESALA. In open court,
Savings and Loan Assoc of liability, but during the during the hearing, Atty. Pena and Atty. Blanco assured that: (1) PAL will regularly remit to
course of negotiations the PESALA the full amount per pay period that is due to the latter; and (2) PAL will likewise pay
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 7 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
defendant expressed a PESALA the balance of the previously undeducted amount by January 1999. These
willingness to pay the plaintiff, assurances are transcribed in the Order dated December 4, 1998 of the RTC. Even if viewed
then such offer of the as an offer of compromise, which is generally inadmissible in evidence against the offeror in
defendant can be taken in civil cases, PAL's acknowledgment of its liability to PESALA falls under one of the exceptions
evidence against him. to the rule of exclusion of compromise negotiations.
In the case at bar, PAL admitted the amount of P44,488,716.41 without an expressed nor
implied denial of liability. This admission, coupled with an assurance of payment, binds PAL.

First, since the law favors the settlement of controversies out of court, a person is entitled to
"buy his or her peace" without danger of being prejudiced in case his or her efforts fail; hence,
any communication made toward that end will be regarded as privileged. Indeed, if every offer
to buy peace could be used as evidence against a person who presents it, many settlements
would be prevented and unnecessary litigation would result, since no prudent person would
dare offer or entertain a compromise if his or her compromise position could be exploited as a
confession of weakness.
Second, offers for compromise are irrelevant because they are not intended as admissions by
Offer of compromise made
the parties making them. A true offer of compromise does not, in legal contemplation, involve
San Miguel Corp v Kalalo prior to the filing of the
an admission on the part of a defendant that he or she is legally liable, or on the part of a
criminal case NOT admissible
plaintiff, that his or her claim is groundless or even doubtful, since it is made with a view to
avoid controversy and save the expense of litigation. It is the distinguishing mark of an offer of
compromise that it is made tentatively, hypothetically, and in contemplation of mutual
concessions.
The Offer of Compromise dated 5 December 2000 was made prior to the filing of the criminal
complaint against her on 9 March 2001 for a violation of the Bouncing Checks Law. The Offer
of Compromise was clearly not made in the context of a criminal proceeding and, therefore,
cannot be considered as an implied admission of guilt.

An offer of compromise from an unauthorized person cannot amount to an admission of the


For offer of compromise to be party himself. Although the Court has held in some cases that an attempt of the parents of the
admissible, accused should accused to settle the case is an implied admission of guilt, we believe that the better rule is
People v Erguiza be present or must have at that for a compromise to amount to an implied admission of guilt, the accused should have
least authorized the proposed been present or at least authorized the proposed compromise. Moreover, it has been held that
compromise where the accused was not present at the time the offer for monetary consideration was made,
such offer of compromise would not save the day for the prosecution.

Sec. 28. Admission by third-party/Res inter alios acta, part one

The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration, or omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding
Res inter alios acta alteri only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused and is considered as
Tamargo v Awingan
nocere non debet hearsay against them. The reason for this rule is that: on a principle of good faith and mutual
convenience, a man's own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So
are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 8 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers;
and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct
be used as evidence against him.

In Estrada, the Court sanctioned the Ombudsman's appreciation of hearsay evidence, which
would otherwise be inadmissible under technical rules on evidence, during the preliminary
investigation "as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay." This is because
Res inter alios acta rule "such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations
Reyes v Ombudsman should not be rigidly applied of parties." Applying the same logic, and with the similar observation that there lies substantial
in preliminary investigation basis for crediting the testimonies of the whistleblowers herein, the objection interposed by the
Napoles siblings under the evidentiary res inter alios acta rule should falter. Ultimately, as case
law edifies, "[t]he technical rules on evidence are not binding on the fiscal who has jurisdiction
and control over the conduct of a preliminary investigation," as in this case.

Indeed, probable cause requires less proof than necessary for conviction. Nonetheless, it
demands more than bare suspicion and must rest on competent relevant evidence. A review
While confession may be of the records, however, show that the only direct material evidence against Salapuddin, as he
relevant, it is not competent had pointed out at every conceivable turn, is the confession made by Ikram. While the
Salapuddin v CA to establish probability of confession is arguably relevant, this is not the evidence competent to establish the probability
accused’s participation in the that Salapuddin participated in the commission of the crime. On the contrary, as pointed out
commission of a crime by the Secretary of Justice, this cannot be considered against Salapuddin on account of the
principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet expressed in Section 28, Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court.

Sec. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent

We have to clarify that ALI's statements, if damaging to AAVA, would be binding on the latter.
The general Ayala Alabang Village "Deed Restrictions," which was attached to the Deed of
Restrictions on the title of the subject property, expressly state that: "2. Compliance with the
Act or declaration of other
said restrictions, reservation, easements and conditions may be enjoined and/or enforced by
Learning Child, Inc. v Ayala person jointly interested with
Court action by Ayala Corporation and/or the Ayala Alabang Village Association, their
Alabang Village Assoc a party is admissible against
respective successors and assigns, or by any member of the Ayala Alabang Village
the latter
Association." As such, it appears that Ayala Corporation is jointly interested with AAVA in an
action to enforce the Deed of Restrictions, and is therefore covered under the following
exception to the res inter alios acta rule.

It can be assumed that the relationships entered between and among petitioners and MBMI
are no simple "joint venture agreements." As a rule, corporations are prohibited from entering
Join ventures deemed akin to into partnership agreements; consequently, corporations enter into joint venture agreements
Narra Nickel v Redmont partnerships allowing the with other corporations or partnerships for certain transactions in order to form "pseudo
application of Sec 29 partnerships." Obviously, as the intricate web of "ventures" entered into by and among
petitioners and MBMI was executed to circumvent the legal prohibition against corporations
entering into partnerships, then the relationship created should be deemed as "partnerships,"
and the laws on partnership should be applied. Thus, a joint venture agreement between and

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 9 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
among corporations may be seen as similar to partnerships since the elements of partnership
are present. Considering that the relationships found between petitioners and MBMI are
considered to be partnerships, then the CA is justified in applying Sec. 29, Rule 130 of the
Rules by stating that "by entering into a joint venture, MBMI have a joint interest" with Narra,
Tesoro and McArthur.

Sec. 30. Admission by conspirator

An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator. In order
that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is
necessary that first, the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself;
People v Bokingo second, the admission relates to the common object; and third, it has been made while the
declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. As we have previously discussed, we
did not find any sufficient evidence to establish the existence of conspiracy. Therefore, the
extrajudicial confession has no probative value and is inadmissible in evidence against Col.

This exception, however, does not apply in the present case since there was no other piece of
GR: Extrajudicial confession evidence presented, aside from the extrajudicial confession, to prove that Nabilgas conspired
People v Cachuela of confessant not binding with the appellants in committing the crime charged. Conspiracy cannot be presumed and must
against co-accused for being be shown as distinctly and conclusively as the crime itself. Nabilgas, in fact, was acquitted by
hearsay the trial court due to insufficiency of evidence to prove his participation in the crime.
XPN: When there is
conspiracy (3 requisites) In People v. Aquino, this Court held that in order that an extra-judicial confession may be used
against a co-accused of the confessant, "there must be a finding of other circumstantial
evidence which when taken together with the confession would establish the guilt of a co-
accused beyond reasonable doubt." Applying the rule to Constancio's case, the Court finds
that the prosecution was able to show circumstantial evidence to implicate him in the crime.
People v Constancio
Significantly, Constancio was positively identified as among those who threw the body of "AAA"
over a bridge. It is significant to note that eyewitness Adarna also attests that Constancio was
riding in the very same car where "AAA" was raped and killed. This fact leaves this Court
without a doubt that Constancio is guilty of the crime charged as the same qualifies as
circumstantial evidence showing his participation in the execution of the crime.

Sec. 31. Admission by privies

The declarations of a person are admissible against a party whenever a "privity of estate"
exists between the declarant and the party, the term "privity of estate" generally denoting a
An admission of one in privity succession in rights. Without doubt, privity exists among the respondents in this case. And
Republic v Sandiganbayan with a party to the record is where several co-parties to the record are jointly interested in the subject matter of the
competent controversy, the admission of one is competent against all. In this case, The individual and
separate admissions of each respondent bind all of them pursuant to Sections 29 and 31, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court.

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 10 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
Sec. 32. Admission by silence

His admitted silence when Nina's mother confronted and even cursed him by his claim, betrays
Silence in the face of his guilt just as his passivity does when he was allegedly maltreated and haled into jail by
People v Roa confrontation and cursing Nina's father on account of the incidents. For an innocent man would certainly strongly protest
betrays guilt and deny a false accusation and do something positive to spare himself of punishment. But he
did not.

Failure to refute the adverse


Notably, petitioner never refuted respondents' explanations for withholding his salary and the
Solas v Power Telephone party’s explanations
reasons why he was required to return the company car, key and cellphone. This constitutes
Supply Phils constitutes admission by
admission by silence under Section 32, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
silence

Sec. 33. Confession

On the question of whether a confession is made voluntarily, the age, character, and
circumstances prevailing at the time it was made must be considered. Much depends upon the
situation and surroundings of the accused. This is the position taken by the courts, whatever
the theory of exclusion of incriminating statements may be. The intelligence of the accused
Age, character, and must also be taken into account. It must be shown that the defendant realized the import of his
circumstances of the accused act.
must be considered in
People v Satorre In the case at bar, appellant was a 19-year-old farmer who did not even finish first grade.
determining whether a
confession is made Granting that he made the confession in the presence of Barangay Captain Castañares, he
voluntarily may not have realized the full import of his confession and its consequences. This is not to say
that he is not capable of making the confession out of a desire to tell the truth if prompted by
his conscience. What we are saying is that due to the aforesaid personal circumstances of
appellant the voluntariness of his alleged oral confession may not be definitively appraised and
evaluated.

Bascugin's confession was freely, intelligently, and deliberately given. Judicial confession
constitutes evidence of a high order. The presumption is that no sane person would
Judicial confession
deliberately confess to the commission of a crime unless prompted to do so by truth and
People v Bascugin constitutes evidence of a high
conscience. Admission of guilt constitutes evidence against the accused pursuant to the
order
following provisions of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, Bascugin's confession is consistent
with the evidence.

The rule that an extra judicial confession is evidence only against the person making it
Extrajudicial confession may recognizes various exceptions. One such exception is where several extra judicial statements
be considered against a third had been made by several persons charged with an offense and there could have been no
People v Muit collusion with reference to said several confessions, the fact that the statements are in all
person when there are
interlocking confessions material respects identical is confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendants and is
admissible against other persons implicated therein. They are also admissible as
circumstantial evidence against the person implicated therein to show the probability of the
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 11 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime and may likewise serve as
corroborative evidence if it is clear from other facts and circumstances that other persons had
participated in the perpetration of the crime charged and proved. These are known as
"interlocking confessions".

RA 7438 An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as Well as the Duties of the Arresting,
Detaining and Investigating Officers, and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof

As correctly found by the lower courts, accused-appellant Peñaflor executed his extrajudicial
confession not during custodial investigation, but during the preliminary investigation.
Custodial Interrogation/Investigation "is the questioning initiated by law enforcement officers
after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant way"; on the other hand, Preliminary Investigation "is an inquiry or a proceeding
Constitutional requirements to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime
on admissibility of has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for
People v Omilig extrajudicial confession NOT trial."
applicable in preliminary Resultingly, the claim by the accused of inadmissibility of his extrajudicial confession is
investigation unavailing because his confessions were obtained during a preliminary investigation. And even
if accused-appellant Peñaflor's extrajudicial confessions were obtained under custodial
investigation, these are admissible. To be admissible, a confession must comply with the
following requirements: it "must be (a) voluntary; (b) made with the assistance of a competent
and independent counsel; (c) express; and (d) in writing." In the case at bar, the prosecution
did not present proof of the absence of any of these requirements.

Anent appellants' claim that their constitutional rights were further violated for during custodial
investigation, they did not have counsel of their choice nor were they provided with one, this
Right to counsel during
deserves scant consideration since the same is relevant and material only when an
custodial investigation
extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from an accused becomes the basis of his
relevant and material only
conviction. In this case, neither one of the appellants executed an admission or confession. In
People v Chi Chan Liu when an extrajudicial
fact, as the records clearly show, appellants barely even spoke and merely kept repeating the
confession extracted from
phrase "call China, big money." The trial court convicted them not on the basis of anything they
accused becomes the basis
said during custodial investigation but on other convincing evidence such as the testimonies
of conviction
of the prosecution witnesses. Verily, there was no violation of appellants' constitutional right to
counsel during custodial investigation.

Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after
Being one of those a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant
investigated in a case for manner. The safeguards during custodial investigation begin to operate as soon as the
missing city funds does not investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into a still unsolved crime, and the interrogation is
Mesina v People
equate to custodial then focused on a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police
investigation but is only an would then direct interrogatory questions that tend to elicit incriminating statements.
administrative inquiry
Contrary to the petitioner's claim, the fact that he was one of those being investigated did not
by itself define the nature of the investigation as custodial. For him, the investigation was still

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 12 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
a general inquiry to ascertain the whereabouts of the missing patubig collection. By its nature,
the inquiry had to involve persons who had direct supervision over the issue, including the City
Treasurer, the City Auditor, the representative from different concerned offices, and even the
City Mayor. What was conducted was not an investigation that already focused on the
petitioner as the culprit but an administrative inquiry into the missing city funds. Besides, he
was not as of then in the custody of the police or other law enforcement office.

Previous Conduct as Evidence

Sec. 34. Similar acts as evidence/Res inter alios acta, part two

Collateral facts may be received as evidence under exceptional circumstances, as when there
is a rational similarity or resemblance between the conditions giving rise to the fact offered and
Evidence of similar acts may
the circumstances surrounding the issue or fact to be proved. Evidence of similar acts may
Tanzo v Drilon be relevant in actions based
frequently become relevant, especially in actions based on fraud and deceit, because it sheds
on fraud and deceit
light on the state of mind or knowledge of a person, it provides insight into such person's motive
or intent, it uncovers a scheme, design or plan, or it reveals a mistake.

"In the early case of United States v. Evangelista, the accused was convicted of arson after
the trial court admitted evidence that he had earlier attempted to set fire to the same premises.
Evidence of similar acts Ruling on the admissibility of the said evidence, we said that: ". . . While it was not the fire
committed about the same charged in the information, and does not by any means amount to direct evidence against the
People v Acosta
time may be received to accused, it was competent to prove the intent of the accused in setting the fire which was
establish criminal intent charged in the information. ". . . 'Where a person is charged with the commission of a specific
crime, testimony may be received of other similar acts, committed about the same time, for the
purpose only of establishing the criminal intent of the accused."

Sec. 35. Unaccepted offer

The tender made by private respondent of a certified bank manager's check payable to
petitioner was a valid tender of payment. The certified check covered not only the balance of
the purchase price but also the arrears in the rental payments. Moreover, Section 49, Rule 130
Tender of a certified bank of the Revised Rules of Court provides that: "An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of
McLaughlin v CA manager’s check is a valid money or to deliver a written instrument or specific property is, if rejected, equivalent to the
tender of payment actual production and tender of the money, instrument, or property." However, although private
respondent had made a valid tender of payment which preserved his rights as a vendee in the
contract of conditional sale of real property, he did not follow it with a consignation or deposit
of the sum due with the court.

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 13 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
Testimonial Knowledge

Sec. 36 Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded

Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the competency
and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce.
However, while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person
given for the purpose of establishing the truth of the fact asserted in the statement is clearly
hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement on the record is merely
Doctrine of independently
Espineli v People to establish the fact that the statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless
relevant statement
of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such statement has
been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. As a matter of
fact, evidence as to the making of the statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement
itself may constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a
fact. This is known as the doctrine of independently relevant statements.

It is a hornbook doctrine of evidence that a witness can testify only to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge, which means those facts which are derived from his
perception. A witness may not testify as to what he merely learned from others either because
he was told or read or heard the same. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be
received as proof of the truth of what he has learned. The hearsay rule is based upon serious
Gulam v Sps Santos
concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of hearsay evidence inasmuch as such
evidence are not given under oath or solemn affirmation and, more importantly, have not been
subjected to cross-examination by opposing counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity,
Witness can only testify to and articulateness of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon whose reliability on which the
those facts which he knows of worth of the out-of-court statement depends.
his personal knowledge
Information that is relayed from one person to another before it reaches the court is considered
hearsay. In the present case, complainant Evangelista testified that she was approached by
Alicia Rubia who told her that she was requested by petitioner to have the check exchanged
for cash, as he needed money badly. Obviously, Evangelista's testimony is hearsay since she
Bayani v People
had no personal knowledge of the fact that petitioner indeed requested Rubia to have the
check exchanged for cash, as she was not personally present when petitioner supposedly
made this request. What she testified to, therefore, was a matter that was not derived from her
own perception but from Rubia's.

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule

Sec. 37. Dying declaration

The dying declaration made Under the Revised Rules on Evidence, a dying declaration is admissible provided the following
People v De Las Eras by the victim immediately requisites are present: (1) the statement concerns the crime and surrounding circumstances
prior to her death constitutes of the declarant's death; (2) at the time it was made, the declarant was under the
evidence of the highest order consciousness of an impending death; (3) the declarant would have been competent as a
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 14 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
of the cause of her death and witness had he survived; and (4) the declaration was offered in a criminal case for homicide,
of the identity of the assailant. murder, or parricide in which the declarant was the victim. When asked by her daughter Hilaria
Binatero and policeman Luisito Redulla, the victim pointed to accused-appellant Gerry de las
Eras as her assailant. This qualifies as a dying declaration.

The significance of a victim's realization or consciousness that he was on the brink of death
cannot be gainsaid. Such ante mortem statement is evidence of the highest order because at
the threshold of death, all thoughts of fabricating lies are stilled. The utterance of a victim made
immediately after sustaining serious injuries may be considered the incident speaking through
Statement must be made in the victim. It is entitled to the highest credence.
People v Peña contemporaneity with the
realization of death Granting that Pelagio, after giving his statement, later on realized that he was dying, his
statement still cannot be considered a dying declaration. The crucial factor to consider is the
contemporaneity of the moment when the statement was made and the moment of the
realization of death. The time the statement was being made must also be the time the victim
was aware that he was dying.

Although Avila, Jr. did not expressly state that he was dying when he made the declaration,
the circumstances surrounding such declaration show that the same was uttered by him under
the consciousness of impending death. It has been held in a number of cases that even if a
Not necessary to state that declarant did not make a statement that he was on the brink of death, a dying declaration may
People v Norrudin
declarant is dying be admissible if there are circumstances from which it may be inferred with certainty that such
was his state of mind. A dying declaration made in the form of answers to questions put by the
person to whom the declaration is made is admissible in court, and may be proved by the
testimony of the witness who heard the same or to whom it was made.

Sec. 38. Declaration against interest

Admissions against interest are those made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or
identified in legal interest with such party, and are admissible whether or not the declarant is
There is a vital distinction available as a witness. Declarations against interest are those made by a person who is neither
between admissions against a party nor in privity with a party to the suit, are secondary evidence, and constitute an
Lazaro v Agustin
interest and declarations exception to the hearsay rule. They are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as
against interest a witness. In the present case, since Basilisa is respondents' predecessor-in-interest and is,
thus, in privity with the latter's legal interest, the former's sworn statement, if proven genuine
and duly executed, should be considered as an admission against interest.

The theory under which declarations against interest are received in evidence notwithstanding
they are hearsay is that the necessity of the occasion renders the reception of such evidence
Declarations against interest
advisable and, further that the reliability of such declaration asserts facts which are against his
receivable in evidence
Parel v Prudencio own pecuniary or moral interest.
because of necessity and
reliability The affiant, Florentino, who died in 1989 was petitioner's father and had adequate knowledge
with respect to the subject covered by his statement. In said affidavit, Florentino categorically
declared that while he is the occupant of the residential building, he is not the owner of the
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 15 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
same as it is owned by respondent who is residing in Quezon City. It is safe to presume that
he would not have made such declaration unless he believed it to be true, as it is prejudicial to
himself as well as to his children's interests as his heirs. A declaration against interest is the
best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute.

In context, the only declaration supposedly made by Gen. Menzi which can conceivably be
Declaration that declarant has labeled as adverse to his interest could be that he was acting in behalf of Marcos in offering to
authority to speak and act for acquire the physical assets of petitioner. Far from making a statement contrary to his own
Phil Free Press v CA
the President NOT a interest, a declaration conveying the notion that the declarant possessed the authority to speak
declaration against interest and to act for the President of the Republic can hardly be considered as a declaration against
interest.

Sec. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree

(✓) Under Article 278 of the New Civil Code, voluntary recognition by a parent shall be made
in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing.
To be effective, the claim of filiation must be made by the putative father himself and the writing
must be the writing of the putative father. A notarial agreement to support a child whose filiation
Incriminating acts acceptable is admitted by the putative father was considered acceptable evidence. Letters to the mother
Herrera v Alba as evidence to establish vowing to be a good father to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddling the child on
filiation various occasions, together with the certificate of live birth, proved filiation.
(x) However, a student permanent record, a written consent to a father's operation, or a
marriage contract where the putative father gave consent, cannot be taken as authentic writing.
Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor family pictures are sufficient to establish
filiation.

Rules respecting the requirement of affixing the signature of the acknowledging parent in any
private handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a legitimate or illegitimate
child is made:
1) Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence submitted to prove
Private handwritten
filiation, there should be strict compliance with the requirement that the same must be signed
instrument ONLY – strict
by the acknowledging parent; and
compliance
2) Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other relevant and competent
Private handwritten
Dela Cruz v Gracia evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been made and
instrument + other relevant
handwritten by the acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such other evidence.
and competent evidence –
NEED NOT be signed as long In the case at bar, there is no dispute that the earlier quoted statements in Dominique's
as made and handwritten by Autobiography have been made and written by him. Taken together with the other relevant
acknowledging parent facts extant herein — that Dominique, during his lifetime, and Jenie were living together as
common-law spouses for several months in 2005 at his parents' house in Pulang-lupa,
Dulumbayan, Teresa, Rizal; she was pregnant when Dominique died on September 4, 2005;
and about two months after his death, Jenie gave birth to the child — they sufficiently establish
that the child of Jenie is Dominique's
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 16 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
For Sec 39 to apply, it would be necessary that (a) the declarant is already dead or unable to
testify, (b) the pedigree of a person must be at issue, (c) the declarant must be a relative of
the person whose pedigree is in question, (d) declaration must be made before the controversy
In determining citizenship has occurred, and (e) the relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree
status, Ordinary Rules on is in question must be shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
Tecson v ComElec
evidence could well and
should govern. Thus, the duly notarized declaration made by Ruby Kelley Mangahas, sister of Bessie Kelley
Poe, before the COMELEC, might be accepted to prove the facts of Allan F. Poe, recognizing
his own paternal relationship with FPJ, i.e., living together with Bessie Kelly and his children
(including respondent FPJ) in one house, and as one family.

Sec. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree

As held in Pruna, if the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been
lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's
mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify
on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party
Aunt may testify on matters pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence.
respecting pedigree but such BBB, who was AAA's aunt, was qualified to testify on AAA's pedigree, like her age and her
People v Gallano
testimony must be clear and date of birth. Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court expressly stated so. Conformably with
credible Pruna, BBB's testimony would have sufficed considering that the information alleged that AAA
was 12 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, and the Prosecution was trying
to prove that AAA was below 18 years old for the purpose of qualifying the rape committed by
the accused. Yet, Pruna dictated that BBB's testimony must be clear and credible. BBB's
testimony failed this test.

Sec. 41. Common reputation

What is to be determined is the character or reputation of the person at the time of the trial and
Evidence of one's character
prior thereto, but not at a period remote from the commencement of the suit. Hence, to say
or reputation must be
that Magdalena's credibility is diminished by proofs of tarnished reputation existing almost a
CSC v Belagan confined to a time not too
decade ago is unreasonable. It is unfair to presume that a person who has wandered from the
remote from the time in
path of moral righteousness can never retrace his steps again. Certainly, every person is
question
capable to change or reform.

Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae

While it may concede that these statements were made by the bystanders during a startling
Utterances made during a
occurrence, it cannot be said however, that these utterances were made spontaneously by the
startling occurrence NOT
bystanders and before they had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood. Both SFO III Rochar
DBP Pool v Radio Mindanao admissible as res gestae
and Lt. Col. Torres received the bystanders' statements while they were making their
when the witnesses had time
investigations during and after the fire. It is reasonable to assume that when these statements
and opportunity to talk to one
were noted down, the bystanders already had enough time and opportunity to mill around, talk
another and exchange
to one another and exchange information, not to mention theories and speculations, as is the
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 17 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
information, theories, and usual experience in disquieting situations where hysteria is likely to take place. It cannot
speculations therefore be ascertained whether these utterances were the products of truth. That the
utterances may be mere idle talk is not remote.

Declaration not spontaneous The declaration made by the victim to his daughter does not satisfy the second requirement of
when made a day after the spontaneity because they were made a day after the incident and the exciting influence of the
incident and the exciting startling occurrence was no longer present. Nevertheless, we hold that Rosa Solarte's
People v Lobrigas
influence of the startling testimony on what her father told her constitutes independent relevant statements distinct from
occurrence was no longer hearsay, and are thus admissible not as to the veracity thereof, but as proof of the fact that
present they had been uttered.

Immediately after the robbery, Dimas dela Cruz, the security guard then on duty, informed Ariel
Statement must be made that one of the perpetrators is herein petitioner. Dimas likewise reported at once the incident
before witness had time and to the police and to the security agency. When questioned by SPO4 Maximo, Dimas, who was
Capila v Rayuma
opportunity to concoct and still shocked, named petitioner herein as one of the robbers. His statements to Ariel and SPO4
contrive a false story Maximo were made before he had the time and opportunity to concoct and contrive a false
story.

Test of admissibility: whether


the act, declaration, or
exclamation is so intimately
In this case, SPO2 Borre's statements refer to a startling occurrence, i.e., him being shot by
interwoven or connected with
Palanas and his companion. While on his way to the hospital, SPO2 Borre had no time to
the principal fact or event that
contrive the identification of his assailants. Hence, his utterance was made in spontaneity and
People v Palanas it characterizes as to be
only in reaction to the startling occurrence. Definitely, such statement is relevant because it
regarded as a part of the
identified Palanas as one of the authors of the crime. Therefore, the killing of SPO2 Borre,
transaction itself, and also
perpetrated by Palanas, is adequately proven by the prosecution.
whether it clearly negates any
premeditation or purpose to
manufacture testimony.

Assuming that petitioner's negligence — which allegedly caused the ship to deviate from its
Requisites for the second course — is the startling occurrence, there is no showing that the statements contained in the
kind of res gestae: fax messages were made immediately after the alleged incident. In addition, no dates have
1. the principal act to be been mentioned to determine if these utterances were made spontaneously or with careful
characterized must be deliberation. Absent the critical element of spontaneity, the fax messages cannot be admitted
equivocal; as part of the res gestae of the first kind.
Talidano v Falcon
2. the equivocal act must be Neither will the second kind of res gestae apply. Petitioner's alleged absence from watch duty
material to the issue; is simply an innocuous act or at least proved to be one. Assuming arguendo that such absence
was the equivocal act, it is nevertheless not accompanied by any statement more so by the
3. the statement must fax statements adverted to as parts of the res gestae. No date or time has been mentioned to
accompany the equivocal act; determine whether the fax messages were made simultaneously with the purported equivocal
and act.Furthermore, the material contents of the fax messages are unclear. The matter of route
encroachment or invasion is questionable. The ship master, who is the author of the fax

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 18 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
4. the statements give a legal messages, did not witness the incident. He obtained such information only from the Japanese
significance to the equivocal port authorities. Verily, the messages can be characterized as double hearsay.
act.

Sec. 43. Entries in the course of business

In Canque v. Court of Appeals, the Court laid down the requisites for admission in evidence of
entries in the course of business: (1) the person who made the entry is dead, outside the
An unsigned drug test result country, or unable to testify; (2) the entries were made at or near the time of the transactions
does not necessarily lead to to which they refer; (3) the person who made the entry was in a position to know the facts
Jose v Michaelmar Phils the conclusion that the stated in the entries; (4) the entries were made in a professional capacity or in the performance
subject is not positive for of a duty; and (5) the entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
drug-use
Here, all the requisites are present. The fact that the drug test result is unsigned does not
necessarily lead to the conclusion that Jose, Jr. was not found positive for marijuana.

But a bank statement, properly authenticated by a competent bank officer, can serve as
evidence of the status of those accounts and what Monet and the Tagles still owe the bank.
Bank statement properly
Under Section 43, Rule 130 14 of the Rules of Court, entries prepared in the regular course of
Land Bank v Monet’s authenticated by a competent
business are prima facie evidence of the truth of what they state. The billing statement
bank officer ADMISSIBLE
reconciles the transaction entries entered in the bank records in the regular course of business
and shows the net result of such transactions.

Mercado, petitioner's bookkeeper who prepared the entries, was presented to testify on the
Entries need not be
transactions pertaining to the account of respondent. It was in the course of his testimony that
presented if person who
the ledger entries were presented. There was, therefore, neither justification nor necessity for
prepared them is available to
the presentation of the entries as the person who made them was available to testify in court.
testify in court
Entries in business records which spring from the duty of other employees to communicate
Security Back v Gan Entries in business records
facts occurring in the ordinary course of business are prima facie admissible, the duty to
NOT admissible when they
communicate being itself a badge of trustworthiness of the entries, but not when they purport
purport to record independent
to record what were independent agreements arrived at by some bank officials and a client. In
agreements arrived at by
this case, the entries become mere casual or voluntary reports of the official concerned. To
some bank officials and a
permit the ledgers, prepared by the bank at its own instance, to substitute the contract as proof
client
of the agreements with third parties, is to set a dangerous precedent.

Sec. 44. Entries in official records

To be admissible, a report Precisely as an exception to the Hearsay Rule, Rule 130, Section 44 does away with the need
made by a public officer in the for presenting as witness the public officer or person performing a duty specially enjoined by
DST Movers v People’s performance of his duties law who made the entry. This, however, is only true, for as long the following requisites have
General Insurance must still be proven to be been satisfied:
based on personal knowledge (a) that the entry was made by a public officer or by another person specially enjoined by law
of the public officer to do so;

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 19 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
(b) that it was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by such other
person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; and
(c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated,
which must have been acquired by him personally or through official information.
While the Traffic Accident Investigation Report was exhibited as evidence, the investigating
officer who prepared the same was not presented in court to testify that he had sufficient
knowledge of the facts therein stated, and that he acquired them personally or through official
information. Neither was there any explanation as to why such officer was not presented. We
cannot simply assume, in the absence of proof, that the account of the incident stated in the
report was based on the personal knowledge of the investigating officer who prepared it.

In this case, the entries made by Ingrid Versola were not based on her personal knowledge as
she did not attest to the fact that she personally prepared and mailed the assessment notice.
Nor was it stated in the transcript of stenographic notes how and from whom she obtained the
Barcelon v CIR pertinent information. Moreover, she did not attest to the fact that she acquired the reports
from persons under a legal duty to submit the same. Hence, Rule 130, Section 44 finds no
application in the present case. Thus, the evidence offered by respondent does not qualify as
an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence.

As to the hearsay rule, Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court similarly provides that
entries in official records are an exception to the rule. The necessity of this rule consists in the
Cadastral maps are inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the official's attendance as a witness to testify to the
exceptions to the hearsay innumerable transactions in the course of his duty. The document's trustworthiness consists
Dimaguila v Sps Monteiro rule and are prima facie in the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty.
evidence of the facts stated Cadastral maps are the output of cadastral surveys. The DENR is the department tasked to
therein execute, supervise and manage the conduct of cadastral surveys. It is, therefore, clear that the
cadastral map and the corresponding list of claimants qualify as entries in official records as
they were prepared by the DENR, as mandated by law.

Sec. 45. Commercial lists and the like

The cited report is a mere newspaper account and not even a commercial list. At most, it is but
an analysis or opinion which carries no persuasive weight for purposes of this case as no
sufficient figures to support it were presented. Neither did anybody testify to its accuracy. It
Newspaper accounts NOT cannot be said that businessmen generally rely on news items such as this in their occupation.
admissible in the absence of Besides, no evidence was presented that the publication was regularly prepared by a person
Meralco v Quisumbing
extrinsic proof of their in touch with the market and that it is generally regarded as trustworthy and reliable. Absent
accuracy extrinsic proof of their accuracy, these reports are not admissible. In the same manner,
newspapers containing stock quotations are not admissible in evidence when the source of
the reports is available. With more reason, mere analyses or projections of such reports cannot
be admitted. In particular, the source of the report in this case can be easily made available

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 20 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
considering that the same is necessary for compliance with certain governmental
requirements.

Sec. 46. Learned treatises

Various scientific studies or


There are several exceptions to the hearsay rule under the Rules of Court, among which are
articles and websites culled
learned treatises under Section 46 of Rule 130. The alleged scientific studies mentioned in the
from the internet NOT
Paje v Casiño Petition cannot be classified as learned treatises. We cannot take judicial notice of the same,
admissible in the absence of
and no witness expert in the subject matter of this case testified, that the writers of the said
testimony of witness expert in
scientific studies are recognized in their profession or calling as experts in the subject.
the subject matter

Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding

Testimony of notary public in None of the circumstances for the admission of the testimony given at a former proceeding
another case where obtains in this case. Not only were petitioners not parties to the former proceeding and hence
Ilao-Quianay v Mapile petitioners are not parties without opportunity to cross-examine the notary public, there was also no proof that the notary
NOT an exception to the public was already deceased or unable to testify. Hence, the testimony should not have been
hearsay rule under Sec 47 accorded any probative weight.

Case law holds that for the said rule to apply, the following requisites must be satisfied: (a) the
Before the former testimony witness is dead or unable to testify; (b) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case
can be introduced in or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same parties or those representing the
evidence, proper predicate same interests; (c) the former case involved the same subject as that in the present case,
Ambray v Tsourous
must be laid by establishing although on different causes of action; (d) the issue testified to by the witness in the former
the basis for the admission of trial is the same issue involved in the present case and (e) the adverse party had an opportunity
the testimony to cross-examine the witness in the former case. The reasons for the admissibility of testimony
taken at a former trial or proceeding are the necessity for the testimony and its trustworthiness.

Opinion Rule

Sec. 49. Opinion of expert witness

Use of an expert witness is As a handwriting expert of the PNP, PO2 Alvarez can surely perceive and make known her
not mandatory but perception to others. We have no doubt that she is qualified as a witness. She cannot be
handwriting experts are often disqualified as a witness since she possesses none of the disqualifications specified under the
Marcos v Heirs of Navarro
offered due to the technical Rules. Respondents' motion to disqualify her should have been denied by the RTC for it was
nature of the procedure in not based on any of these grounds for disqualification. The RTC rather confused the
examining forged documents qualification of the witness with the credibility and weight of her testimony.

The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the
Courts NOT bound by expert
Tabao v People trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the
testimonies but has the
witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion,
DISCRETION to determine
his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness,
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 21 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
their relative weight and the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and
sufficiency any other matters which deserve to illuminate his statements.
The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in
view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails,
the expert opinion may be given controlling effect. The problem of the credibility of the expert
witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling
thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.

Sec. 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses

Probative value of an expert


testimony lies in the
assistance that the expert In the present case, Dra. dela Llana's medical opinion cannot be given probative value for the
witness may afford the courts reason that she was not presented as an expert witness. As an ordinary witness, she was not
Dela Llana v Biong by demonstrating the facts competent to testify on the nature, and the cause and effects of whiplash injury. Furthermore,
which serve as a basis for his we emphasize that Dra. dela Llana, during trial, nonetheless did not provide a medical
opinion and the reasons on explanation on the nature as well as the cause and effects of whiplash injury in her testimony.
which the logic of his
conclusions is founded

Under Section 50, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, an ordinary witness may give his opinion on
the mental sanity of a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted. Lulu's attending
Where the sanity of a person
physicians spoke and interacted with her. Such occasions allowed them to thoroughly observe
Hernandez v San Juan-Santos is at issue, expert opinion is
her behavior and conclude that her intelligence level was below average and her mental stage
not necessary
below normal. The observations of the trial judge coupled with evidence establishing the
person's state of mental sanity will suffice.

On the other hand, the denials of Eduardo and Jorge of their mother's signature may be
properly appreciated in evidence, as Section 50, Rule 130 allows the opinion of an ordinary
Child may be the most witness to be received in evidence regarding a handwriting with which he has sufficient
Sps Lim v Chuatoco reliable witness to testify on familiarity. The appellate court committed no error in ruling that Eduardo would probably be
his mother’s handwriting the most reliable witness to testify on the handwriting of his mother because he had worked
closely with and exchanged papers and communications with Leoncia on a regular basis, the
latter being then the administrator of the properties left by Jose.

Character Evidence

Sec. 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions

In the instant case, proof of the bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to determine the
Proof of the victim's bad probability or improbability of his killing. Accused-appellant has not alleged that the victim was
People v Lee moral character is NOT the aggressor or that the killing was made in self-defense. There is no connection between the
necessary in cases of murder deceased's drug addiction and thievery with his violent death in the hands of accused-
appellant. In light of the positive eyewitness testimony, the claim that because of the victim's
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 22 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
committed with treachery and bad character he could have been killed by any one of those from whom he had stolen, is pure
premeditation and simple speculation.

RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

Sec. 1. Burden of proof

Burden of proof is the duty of


The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the
a party to present evidence to
burden of proof to obtain a favorable judgment. For the defendant, an affirmative defense is
Supreme Transliner v CA establish his claim or defense
one which is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff's cause of action, but one
by the amount of evidence
which, if established, will be a good defense — i.e., an "avoidance" of the claim.
required by law

In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only
the commission of the crime but likewise to establish, with the same quantum of proof, the
identity of the person or persons responsible therefor. This burden of proof does not shift to
Burden of proof DOES NOT
the defense but remains in the prosecution throughout the trial. However, when the prosecution
People v Kinok shift while burden of evidence
has succeeded in discharging the burden of proof by presenting evidence sufficient to convince
DOES
the court of the truth of the allegations in the information or has established a prima facie case
against the accused, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused making it incumbent upon
him to adduce evidence in order to meet and nullify, if not to overthrow, that prima facie case.

RULE 132 PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE

Examination of Witness

Sec. 1. Examination to be done in open court

There is also the advantage of enabling the judge as the trier of facts "to obtain the elusive and
incommunicable evidence of a witness' deportment while testifying, and a certain subjective
The main and essential moral effect is produced upon the witness."
purpose of requiring a witness
Thus, Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Rules requires that in determining the superior weight of
to appear and testify orally at
evidence on the issues involved, the court, aside from the other factors therein enumerated,
People v Go a trial is to secure for the
may consider the "witness' manner of testifying" which can only be done if the witness gives
adverse party the opportunity
his testimony "orally in open court." If a trial judge prepares his opinion immediately after the
of cross-examination
conclusion of the trial, with the evidence and his impressions of the witnesses fresh in his mind,
it is obvious that he is much more likely to reach a correct result than if he simply reviews the
evidence from a typewritten transcript, without having had the opportunity to see, hear and
observe the actions and utterances of the witness.

Depositions may be used Depositions are allowed as a departure from the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of
San Luis v Rojas without the deponent being examining witnesses in open court, where their demeanor could be observed by the trial judge;
actually called to the witness and the procedure is not on that account rendered illegal nor is the deposition, thereby taken,
stand by the proponent, inadmissible. It precisely falls within one of the exceptions where the law permits such a
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 23 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
under certain conditions and situation, i.e., the use of a deposition in lieu of the actual appearance and testimony of the
for certain limited purposes deponent in open court and without being subject to the prying eyes and probing questions of
under Section 4, Rule 24 of the Judge. Depositions are consistent with the principle of promoting just, speedy and
the Rules of Court inexpensive disposition of every action or proceeding. Depositions are allowed provided the
deposition is taken in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rules of Court; that is,
with leave of court if the summons have been served, without leave of court if an answer has
been submitted; and provided, further, that a circumstance for their admissibility exists.

[U]nder the concept adopted by the new Rules, the deposition serves the double function of a
method of discovery and a method of presenting testimony. Accordingly, no limitations other
than relevancy and privilege have been placed on the taking of depositions, while the use at
Deposition may be taken and the trial is subject to circumscriptions looking toward the use of oral testimony wherever
used as a method to present practicable.
Santamaria v Cleary
testimony when the witness is That neither the presiding judge nor the parties will be able to personally examine and observe
out the Philippines the conduct of a deponent does not justify denial of the right to take deposition. As suggested
by the Court of Appeals, the parties may also well agree to take deposition by written
interrogatories to afford petitioners the opportunity to cross-examine without the need to fly to
the United States.

Sec. 3. Rights and obligations of a witness

Trial court bound to protect


About five years have passed from the time the Lee-Keh children sought the issuance of a
every witness against
subpoena for Tiu to appear before the trial court. The RTC would have to update itself and
Lee v CA oppressive behavior of an
determine if Tiu's current physical condition makes her fit to undergo the ordeal of coming to
examiner especially when
court and being questioned. If she is fit, she must obey the subpoena issued to her.
witness is of advanced age

Sec. 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and extent

The cross-examination of a witness is essential to test his or her credibility, expose falsehoods
or half-truths, uncover the truth which rehearsed direct examination testimonies may
successfully suppress, and demonstrate inconsistencies in substantial matters which create
Cross-examination necessary
People v Ortillas reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused and thus give substance to the constitutional
to test witness’s credibility
right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him. Records disclose that there was
never a valid waiver on the part of appellant or his counsel to cross-examine the prosecution
witness Russel.

This Court has a situation where the incriminatory statements allegedly made by AAA were
Testimony remains hearsay conveyed to the trial court not by AAA herself but by PO3 Cobardo, BSF Estudillo and BSF
People v Estibal in the absence of cross- Perlas. In particular, PO3 Cobardo made a summation of what she claims was AAA's narration
examination of her ordeal, along with her own observations of her demeanor during the investigation. But
unless the prosecution succeeded in invoking res gestae, their testimonies must be dismissed

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 24 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
as hearsay, since AAA's statements were not subjected to cross-examination consistent with
the constitutional right of the accused-appellant to confront the evidence against him.

Sec 9. Recalling witness

It was well within the trial court's discretion to allow the recall of witness Russel under the then
Witness may be recalled to prevailing Section 9, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence. Certainly, under the foregoing
People v Ortillas give opportunity for cross- circumstances, Judge Alumbres should have known that the interest of justice required that
examination appellant should have been given the opportunity to cross-examine Russel, as it was not his
fault that Russel had not been cross-examined.

One of the main reasons presented by Judge Catilo in nullifying the pre-trial proceedings was
that the proceedings conducted after the pretrial conference did not comply with the prescribed
Failure to identify exhibits
procedure in the presentation of witnesses. But as propounded by the CA, and even the OSG
mentioned in affidavits does
Zaldivar v People who appeared for Judge Catilo, what the trial court should have done to correct any "perceived"
not justify the nullification of
procedural lapses committed during the presentation of the prosecution's evidence was to
pre-trial proceedings
recall the prosecution's witnesses and have them identify the exhibits mentioned in their
respective affidavits.

Sec. 10. Leading and misleading questions

With respect to the fact that leading questions were propounded to Andrea during her direct
Child witness may be asked examination, suffice it to say that under the Rules of Court, such questions are allowed
Dulla v CA
leading questions considering the age (three years and 10 months) of the witness at the time she testified in court
in accordance with Rule 132, §10 (c).

Sec. 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness

Although she is the offended party, Magdalena, by testifying in her own behalf, opened herself
to character or reputation attack pursuant to the principle that a party who becomes a witness
Testifying on one’s behalf
in his own behalf places himself in the same position as any other witness, and may be
CSC v Belagan opens one’s self to character
impeached by an attack on his character or reputation. With the foregoing disquisition, the
or reputation attack
Court of Appeals is correct in holding that the character or reputation of a complaining witness
in a sexual charge is a proper subject of inquiry.

Sec. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness

This rule is based on the theory that a person who produces a witness vouches for him as
being worthy of credit, and that a direct attack upon the veracity of the witness "would enable
Adverse party or hostile
the party to destroy the witness, if he spoke against him, and to make him a good witness, if
witness may not be
Gomez v Gomez-Samson he spoke for him, with the means in his hands of destroying his credit, if he spoke against him."
impeached by evidence of his
bad character Be that as it may, even if Jose Sebastian had been declared by the court as an unwilling or
hostile witness, the third paragraph of Section 12, in relation to Section 11 of the same Rule,
only allows the party calling the witness to impeach such witness by contradictory evidence or
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 25 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
by prior inconsistent statements, and never by evidence of his bad character. Thus, Jose
Sebastian's subsequent dismissal as a judge would not suffice to discredit him as a witness in
this case.

Section 5 of the JAR expressly excludes from its application adverse party and hostile
Section 5 of JAR not
witnesses. For the presentation of these types of witnesses, the provision on the Rules of Court
Ng Meng Tam v Chinabank applicable to adverse party
under the Revised Rules of Evidence and all other correlative rules including the modes of
and hostile witnesses
deposition and discovery rules (i.e., written interrogatories) shall apply.

Sec. 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements

The Solicitor General correctly noted that appellant's counsel never confronted Marlyn
Calaycay during the proceedings in the trial court regarding the entries in the police blotter to
People v Doca
give her the opportunity to confirm or deny authorship thereof, and in case of the former, to
explain the alleged discrepancy.

Every witness is presumed to be truthful and perjury is not to be readily inferred just because
apparent inconsistencies are evinced in parts of his testimony. Every effort to reconcile the
convicting points should first be exerted before any adverse conclusion can be made
therefrom. These considerations lie at the base of the familiar rule requiring the laying of a
To impeach a witness by
People v Sambahon predicate, which in essence means simply that it is the duty of a party trying to impugn the
previous inconsistent
testimony of a witness by means of prior or, for that matter, subsequent inconsistent statement,
statements, his attention must
whether oral or in writing, to give the witness a chance to reconcile his conflicting declarations,
first be directed to the
such that it is only when no reasonable explanation is given by him that he should be deemed
discrepancies and he must be
impeached.
given the opportunity to
explain them
Before the credibility of a witness and the truthfulness of his testimony can be impeached by
evidence consisting of his prior statements which are inconsistent with his present testimony,
the cross-examiner must lay the predicate or the foundation for impeachment and thereby
prevent an injustice to the witness being cross-examined. The witness must be given a chance
People v Bajada to recollect and to explain the apparent inconsistency between his two statements and state
the circumstances under which they were made. This Court held in People v. Escosura that
the statements of a witness prior to her present testimony cannot serve as basis for impeaching
her credibility unless her attention was directed to the inconsistencies or discrepancies and
she was given an opportunity to explain said inconsistencies.

Sec. 15. Exclusion and separation of witnesses

Under the circumstances of the case, it lies within the trial court's discretion to allow or not to
allow a witness to testify, who, notwithstanding the order excluding witnesses from the court
Court, on it is own, may room, remained there, although this court believes that the testimony of said witnesses should
People v Sandal
exclude witnesses have been admitted. And since there is nothing to show what this witness would have stated
in his testimony, it cannot be held that his failure to testify has materially affected the appellants'
defense.
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 26 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
Excluding future witnesses from the courtroom at the time another witness is testifying, or
ordering that these witnesses be kept separate from one another, is primarily to prevent them
from conversing with one another. The purpose is to ensure that the witnesses testify to the
truth by preventing them from being influenced by the testimonies of the others. In other words,
Motion may be made to
Design Sources v Eristingcol this measure is meant to prevent connivance or collusion among witnesses. The efficacy of
exclude witnesses
excluding or separating witnesses has long been recognized as a means of discouraging
fabrication, inaccuracy, and collusion. However, without any motion from the opposing party
or order from the court, there is nothing in the rules that prohibits a witness from hearing the
testimonies of other witnesses.

Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum

The provision of Sec. 10, Rule 132 applies only when it is shown beforehand that there is need
to refresh the memory of the witness. The memorandum used to refresh his memory does not
constitute evidence, and may not be admitted as such, for the simple reason that the witness
Memorandum used to refresh
Borromeo v CA has to testify just the same on the basis of refreshed memory. In other words, where the
memory NOT evidence
witness has testified independently of or after his testimony has been refreshed by a
memorandum of the events in dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative
evidence.

It is self-evident that a witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared
wholly by him. He cannot be more credible just because he supports his open-court declaration
Witness cannot be more
with written statements of the same facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in
credible just because he
dispute, unless the proper predicate of his failing memory is priorly laid down. What is more,
Canque v CA supports his open-court
even where this requirement has been satisfied, the express injunction of the rule itself is that
declaration with written
such evidence must be received with caution, if only because it is not very difficult to conceive
statements of the same facts
and fabricate evidence of this nature. This is doubly true when the witness stands to gain
materially or otherwise from the admission of such evidence.

Sec. 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the remainder admissible

Section 17 applies only when Accused-appellant insists that his counsel should have been allowed to ask questions in
parts of an act, declaration, relation to the sworn statement executed by complainant. He cites Rule 132, §17 of the
People v Rivera
conversation, writing, or Revised Rules of Evidence. Neither can this rule be invoked to justify the questioning of
record is given in evidence complainant which the trial court did not allow.

Trial in the case had not yet begun. Consequently, it cannot be said that Johnny had already
Requesting inquiry by virtue presented the Philhealth claim form in evidence, the act contemplated above which would
Chan v Chan of a document attached in an justify Josielene into requesting an inquiry into the details of his hospital confinement. Johnny
answer is premature was not yet bound to adduce evidence in the case when he filed his answer. Any request for
disclosure of his hospital records would again be premature.

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 27 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
Authentication and Proof of Documents

Sec. 19. Classes of documents

The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be
presented as evidence in court. A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign
character, or because it has been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will)
or a competent public official with the formalities required by law, or because it is a public
Ledgers of petitioner’s record of a private writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires no further
Patula v People various customers and their authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. In contrast, a private document
derivatives– private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention
of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is
proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the
solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner
allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court.

During authentication in court, a witness positively testifies that a document presented as


evidence is genuine and has been duly executed or that the document is neither spurious nor
counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under duress. In this case, petitioner merely presented
Copies of the audited a memorandum attesting to the increase in the corporation's monthly market revenue,
financial statements prepared by a member of his management team. While there is no fixed criterion as to what
Salas v Sta Mesa
submitted to the BIR – private constitutes competent evidence to establish the authenticity of a private document, the best
document proof available must be presented. The best proof available, in this instance, would have been
the testimony of a representative of SMMC's external auditor who prepared the audited
financial statements. In as much as there was none, the audited financial statements were
never authenticated.

In Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc, this court held that mere collection of documents by the PCGG
does not make such documents public documents per se under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court:
Petitioner presented as witness its records officer, Maria Lourdes Magno, who testified that
Documents collected by
these public and private documents had been gathered by and taken into the custody of the
PCGG in the course of its
PCGG in the course of the Commission's investigation of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the
Republic v Sps Gimenez investigation – NOT PER SE
Marcoses. However, given the purposes for which these documents were submitted, Magno
public documents
was not a credible witness who could testify as to their contents. To reiterate, "[i]f the writings
have subscribing witnesses to them, they must be proved by those witnesses." Witnesses, can
testify only to those facts which are of their personal knowledge; that is, those derived from
their own perception. Thus, Magno could only testify as to how she obtained custody of these
documents, but not as to the contents of the documents themselves.

Death certificate, marriage As public documents, they are admissible in evidence even without further proof of their due
certificate, and certification to execution and genuineness. Thus, the RTC erred when it disregarded said documents on the
Iwasawa v Gangan
the effect that there are two sole ground that the petitioner did not present the records custodian of the NSO who issued
entries of marriage - public them to testify on their authenticity and due execution since proof of authenticity and due
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 28 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
execution was not anymore necessary. Moreover, not only are said documents admissible,
they deserve to be given evidentiary weight because they constitute prima facie evidence of
the facts stated therein. And in the instant case, the facts stated therein remain unrebutted
since neither the private respondent nor the public prosecutor presented evidence to the
contrary.

As mentioned in our March 9, 2011 Decision, USAID is the principal United States agency that
extends assistance to countries recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and
engaging in democratic reforms and that it is an independent federal government agency that
receives over-all foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State of the United States.
Heirs of Ochoa v G&S
USAID certification - public There can be no doubt that the USAID is an official government agency of a foreign country,
Transport
the United States. Hence, Cruz, as USAID's Chief of the Human Resources Division in the
Philippines, is actually a public officer. Apparently, Cruz's issuance of the subject USAID
Certification was made in the performance of his official functions, he having charge of all
employee files and information as such officer.

Sec. 20. Proof of private document

The requirement of authentication of a private document is excused only in four instances,


specifically: (a) when the document is an ancient one within the context of Section 21, Rule
132 of the Rules of Court; (b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable
document have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party; (c) when the
genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted; or (d) when the document
is not being offered as genuine.
Identification of signature
Go's attempt at authentication of the signature of petitioner on the receipt immediately fizzled
Patula v People based on the legibility of the
out after the Prosecution admitted that the document was a mere machine copy, not the
family name is ineffectual
original.
Guivencan's identification of petitioner's signature on two receipts based alone on the fact that
the signatures contained the legible family name of Patula was ineffectual. Apparently,
Guivencan could not honestly identify petitioner's signature on the receipts either because she
lacked familiarity with such signature, or because she had not seen petitioner affix her
signature on the receipt.

Section 20 of the same law provides that before any private document is received in evidence,
its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by anyone who saw the document
Only persons enumerated
executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
Malayan Insurance v Phil Nails under Sec 20 may
maker. In this case, respondent admits that King was none of the aforementioned persons.
& Wires authenticate a private
She merely made the summary of the weight of steel billets based on the unauthenticated bill
document
of lading and the SGS report. Thus, the summary of steel billets actually received had no
proven real basis, and King's testimony on this point could not be taken at face value.

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 29 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
As the acknowledgment in the REM shows, the name of the person who personally appeared
Improperly notarized
before the notary public is not stated. Documents acknowledged before a notary public, except
Dycoco v Orina documents are not public
last wills and testaments, are public documents. Since the subject REM was not properly
documents
notarized, its public character does not hold.

Sec. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved

Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides: The handwriting of a person may be
proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of the person because he has
Handwriting experts, while
seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has
Progressive Trade & Service v useful, are not indispensable
acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
Antonio in examining or comparing
Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness
handwritings or signatures
or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the
evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

The petitioner was actually arguing against herself in invoking Rule 132, Section 21, for one of
the modes prescribed therein for proving the execution and authenticity of any private writing
is "by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker." This mode must be read
Handwriting may be proved
Raz v Appellate Court with Section 23 of the same Rule, which says that — . . . Evidence respecting the handwriting
by comparison
may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted
or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

Sec. 24. Proof of official record

It is worth reiterating at this point that under the rules of private international law, a foreign law
must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. In the absence of pleading and proof, the laws
of the foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our local or domestic law.
Nedlloyd v Glow Laks Processual presumption This is known as processual presumption. While the foreign law was properly pleaded in the
case at bar, it was, however, proven not in the manner provided by Section 24, Rule 132 of
the Revised Rules of Court. The decision of the RTC, which proceeds from a disregard of
specific rules cannot be recognized.

It cannot be overemphasized that the required certification of an officer in the foreign service
under Section 24 refers only to the documents enumerated in Section 19 (a), to wit: written
Requirements under Section official acts or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals,
Heris of Sps Arcilla v Teodoro 24 not applicable to notarial and public officers of the Philippines or of a foreign country. The Court agrees with the CA that
documents had the Court intended to include notarial documents as one of the public documents
contemplated by the provisions of Section 24, it should not have specified only the documents
referred to under paragraph (a) of Section 19.

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 30 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must state

For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisites are
mandatory: (1) it must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his
deputy; and (2) it must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and
Foreign laws are not a matter
with the seal of his office. Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record
of judicial notice. Like any
Nedlloyd v Glow Laks is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody
other fact, they must be
thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized Philippine embassy or consular
alleged and proven
officials stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the
seal of his office. The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of
the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must be under the official seal
of the attesting officer.

Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact, they must be allegedand
proven. The Court has admitted certain exceptions to the above rules and held that the
existence of a foreign law may also be established through: (1) a testimony under oath of an
expert witness such as an attorney-at-law in the country where the foreign law operates
To prove a foreign law, the wherein he quotes verbatim a section of the law and states that the same was in force at the
party invoking it must present time material to the facts at hand; and (2) likewise, in several naturalization cases, it was held
Sobejana-Condon v ComElec a copy thereof and comply by the Court that evidence of the law of a foreign country on reciprocity regarding the
with Sections 24 and 25 of acquisition of citizenship, although not meeting the prescribed rule of practice, may be allowed
the Revised Rules of Court and used as basis for favorable action, if, in the light of all the circumstances, the Court is
"satisfied of the authenticity of the written proof offered."
Also, the letter issued by the Australian government showing that petitioner already renounced
her Australian citizenship was unauthenticated hence, the courts a quo acted judiciously in
disregarding the same.

Sec. 27. Public record of a private document

The documents in question were supposedly copies of the audited financial statements of
Financial statements filed SMMC. Financial statements show the fiscal condition of a particular entity within a specified
with a government office period. The financial statements prepared by external auditors who are certified public
Salas v Sta Mesa
pursuant to a provision of law accountantsare audited financial statements. Financial statements, whether audited or not,
become public documents are, as [a] general rule, private documents. However, once financial statements are filed with
a government office pursuant to a provision of law, they become public documents.

Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record

As custodians of public documents, civil registrars are public officers charged with the duty,
Presumption of regularity of
Abbas v Abbas inter alia, of maintaining a register book where they are required to enter all applications for
official acts may be rebutted
marriage licenses, including the names of the applicants, the date the marriage license was
by affirmative evidence of
issued and such other relevant data. The above Rule authorizes the custodian of the
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 31 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
irregularity or failure to documents to certify that despite diligent search, a particular document does not exist in his
perform a duty office or that a particular entry of a specified tenor was not to be found in a register.
No affirmative evidence was shown that the Municipal Civil Registrar was lax in performing her
duty of checking the records of their office, thus the presumption must stand. In fact, proof
does exist of a diligent search having been conducted, as Marriage License No. 9969967 was
indeed located and submitted to the court. The fact that the names in said license do not
correspond to those of Gloria and Syed does not overturn the presumption that the registrar
conducted a diligent search of the records of her office.

This Court considered the certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar as a certification of
Certification need not due search and inability to find the record or entry sought by the parties despite the absence
categorically state that “such of a categorical statement that "such document does not exist in their records despite diligent
Kho v Republic document does not exist in search." The Court, citing Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, held that the certification
their records despite diligent of due search and inability to find a record or entry as to the purported marriage license, issued
search” by the civil registrar, enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to keep
a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license.

In criminal cases, mere This court cannot grant the presumption of good faith and regularity in the performance of
presentation of a certification official functions to the civil registrar for the purposes sought by petitioner. In other words, the
from the civil registrar that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions is too remotely detached to
marriage license cannot be the conclusion that there is no marriage license.
Vitangcol v People
found is not enough to At best, the presumption of regularity in the performance of the civil registrar's function without
discharge the burden of the context just discussed can lead to the conclusion that he in good faith could not find the
proving that no such marriage marriage license in his office. This presumption does not mean that the marriage license did
license was issued. not exist. Nor does it mean that the marriage license was issued.

Sec. 29. How judicial record impeached

It is true that under section 45, Rule 123, of the Rules of Court, a judicial record may be
Where the Court of Industrial impeached by evidence of want of jurisdiction, or when there is collusion between the parties,
Relations commits error in the or fraud in the party offering the record, and a court of first instance has jurisdiction to take
appreciation of the evidence cognizance of such matters when presented in a proper action, but none of said cases obtains
Yucuanseh v National Labor
or in the application of the in the instant case, for certainly it cannot be argued that the Court of Industrial Relations did
Union
law, the error can only be not have jurisdiction to act on the unfair labor practice case wherein the order in dispute had
corrected by appeal as been issued. That court may have committed an error in the appreciation of the evidence or in
provided for by law the application of the law, but such error can only be corrected by appeal as provided for by
law.

Sec. 30. Proof of notarial documents

Parties should not be made to


Destreza v Riñoza-Plazo Parties who appear before a notary public to have their documents notarized should not be
suffer the consequences of
expected to follow up on the submission of the notarial reports. No rule requires a party, who
the negligence of the Notary
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 32 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
Public in following the relies on a notarized deed of sale for establishing his ownership, to present further evidence
procedures prescribed by the of such deed's genuineness lest the presumption of its due execution be for naught.
Notarial Law

A notarial document is evidence of the facts expressed therein. A notarized document enjoys
a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Clear and convincing evidence
Notarized document enjoys a must be presented to overcome such legal presumption. In the instant case, petitioners failed
prima facie presumption of to adduce sufficient evidence to overcome the above presumption.
authenticity and due
Gutierrez v Mendoza-Plaza Furthermore, the Court finds nothing wrong and/or unusual in the fact that the deed of donation
execution which may only be
overcome by clear and inter vivos was produced and made known to petitioners only in the early part of the year 2006
convincing evidence or more than sixty (60) years after its execution. Understandably, it was only when petitioners
claimed ownership of a portion of the subject property that respondents were compelled to
assert their own title to the property, which they traced to the deed of donation inter vivos.

Sec. 31. Alterations in document, how to explain

There is no doubt that the alterations in the assailed deed of sale are substantial and material.
We have reviewed the evidence on record and we are convinced that the respondents, either
by themselves or at their behest and without the knowledge of the petitioners, caused the
alterations in the assailed copy of the Confirmatory Deed of Sale.
Confirmatory Deed of Sale
Cabotaje v Pudunan Furthermore, Judge Maddela knew or should have known the legal implications of the
(x) Lot 1 included in the sale
alterations on the original copy of the Confirmatory Deed of Sale without making the
of Lot 2 for only P2,000.00
appropriate alterations in his own copies of the deed, and could not have agreed to merely
ordering the clerk of court to make the alterations himself. Aside from the fact that the copies
of the deed retained by Judge Maddela do not contain any alterations, the respondents failed
to present Judge Tomas Maddela to corroborate the testimony of respondent Maria Rivera.

Since there was a discrepancy as to the two certifications, reference must be made to the
zonal values posted by the Bureau of Internal Revenue on their website, which are accessible
to the general public.
BIR Zonal Valuations It is clear, therefore, that alterations were made to the Republic's photocopy of the zonal
Republic v Fernandez Fernandez’s – P50 values. These alterations, however, were not properly authenticated in court by the Republic.
Marciano P. Felipe, Jr. was not presented as a witness to testify on the typewritten annotations.
(x) Republic’s – P15 There was no evidence presented that the Bureau of Internal Revenue or any of its officers
consented to the typewritten annotations. There was also no explanation given by the Republic
as to why there were typewritten annotations to what otherwise appeared to be a genuine
document.

SPA
On this score, Atty. Campos, testifying for the respondents stated that while the Deed of
Sps Cirelos v Sps Hernandez (✓) With words “sell,”
Absolute Sale which he notarized involved a property registered in the names of the spouses,
“absolute sale,” and “sale” and the deed was signed only by Cirelos, he allowed the same, as an SPA was shown to him
and initials ABC
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 33 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
with the words "sell", "absolute sale", and "sale" with the initials ABC; and that said SPA was
already annotated at the back of the title and marked as exhibits
As respondents were able to show that there was already an annotation on the title anent the
SPA executed by Aniceto in favor of Cirelos, with power to sell as well as mortgage, which was
inscribed before Cirelos started transacting with Hernandez, we find that respondents were
able to comply with the requirements of Rule 132, Section 31 and were able to show, by
convincing evidence that the insertions in the SPA were already existing when it was given to
them by Cirelos.

Sec. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language

The rule is that when there is presented in evidence an exhibit written in any language other
than the official language (Filipino or English), if there is an appeal, that exhibit should be
Extrajudicial confession
translated by the official interpreter of the court, or a translation should be agreed upon by the
(Cebuano)
parties, and both original and translation sent to this court.
People v Tomaquin Document in unofficial
Nevertheless, considering that appellant did not interpose any objection thereto, and the
language may still be
parties and the judicial authorities or personnel concerned appeared to be familiar with or
admissible
knowledgeable of Cebuano in which the document was written, such extrajudicial confession
was appropriately considered by the trial court as evidence for the prosecution.

Escritura de Venta Absoluta The records show that there was no prejudice caused to the plaintiffs who appear to be familiar
(Spanish) with the contents or the nature of Exhibit '1'. As proof thereof, they even questioned the
Pisueña v Unating Rule not to be taken literally defendant on the subject document. Importantly, when required by the court to comment on
in the absence of prejudice to the English translation of Exhibit '1' plaintiffs did not bother to comment giving rise to the
the opposing party presumption that the translation submitted was correct.

Offer and Objection

Sec. 34. Offer of evidence

“To allow parties to attach any document to their pleadings and then expect the court to
consider is as evidence, even without formal offer and admission, may draw unwarranted
Evidence offered to consequences. Opposing parties will be deprived of their chance to examine the document
determine only in the civil and to object to its admissibility. On the other hand, the appellate court will have difficulty
Ala-Martin v Sultan aspect of the case NOT reviewing documents not previously scrutinized by the court below."
considered in the criminal The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
aspect reasonable doubt. This the prosecution failed to do. It did not formally offer its documentary
evidence. It merely offered the same during that part of the hearing on the civil liability of the
accused.

Identification and marking ≠ A formal offer is necessary because it is the duty of a judge to rest his findings of facts and his
Parel v Prudencio
offer judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties to the suit. It is a settled
2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 34 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
rule that the mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as an exhibit does
not mean that it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of a party.

It bears stressing too that all the documents attached by Wincorp to its pleadings before the
CA cannot be given any weight or evidentiary value for the sole reason that, as correctly
Document not offered is a observed by the CA, these documents were not formally offered as evidence in the trial court.
Westmont v Francia mere scrap of paper barren of To consider them now would deny the other parties the right to examine and rebut them.
probative weight
"Unless and until admitted by the court in evidence for the purpose or purposes for which such
document is offered, the same is merely a scrap of paper barren of probative weight."

The rules of procedure being mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, the
Court is empowered to suspend their application to a particular case when its rigid application
Court is empowered to
tends to frustrate rather than promote the ends of justice. Denying the application for
suspend application of the
Republic v Go registration now on the ground of failure to present proof of the status of the land before the
rules of procedure to promote
trial court and allowing Victoria to re-file her application would merely unnecessarily duplicate
the ends of justice
the entire process, cause additional expense and add to the number of cases that courts must
resolve.

Sec. 35. When to make offer

Party calling a witness must The appellant did not object to Job's testimony when the public prosecutor offered it. Instead,
give a gist of the proposed the appellant cross-examined the witness. The appellant did not protest when the prosecutor
testimony to enable the court faultily offered its documentary and physical evidence and rested its case. The appellant even
People v Vargas
and the adverse party to offered testimonial evidence to controvert Job's testimony. It is now too late in the day for the
determine its relevancy to the appellant to assail, for the first time in this Court, the public prosecutor's failure to offer the
issues at hand testimony of a witness before direct examination.

The prosecutor’s statement that what was being tried was the last rape committed in July 1996
is an innocuous error that did not prejudice the rights of the appellant. The records show that
An error in the offer is cured Analiza testified that appellant raped her on the first and last week of July 1996 and Analiza
People v Dequito by the adverse party’s failure was cross-examined on both incidents. The counsel for appellant did not object that Analiza
to object cannot testify on the first rape as the prosecutor was presenting her only to prove the second
rape in July 1996. Appellant therefore cannot complain of surprise. He was able to defend
himself from the charge of the complainant.

After a party has presented Indeed, Judge Martin Ocampo erred in declaring that the respondent’s formal offer of evidence
its lone witness, who already was prematurely filed, and that the petitioners need not yet file their comment thereon because
testified on direct and cross- of the petitioners’ unresolved motion. The respondent had already presented its lone witness,
Rodson v CA
examination, said party is Maquilan, who already testified on direct and cross-“:examination. Hence, the respondent was
obliged to formally offer its obliged to formally offer its documentary evidence as provided by Section 35, Rule 132 of the
documentary evidence Revised Rules on Evidence.

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 35 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
Sec. 36. Objection

The unyielding rule is that evidence not objected to may be deemed admitted and be validly
Evidence not objected to considered by the court in arriving at its judgment. Since no objection to the admissibility of
becomes the property of the evidence was made in the court below, an objection raised for the first time on appeal shall not
case and all the parties are be considered.
People v Mendoza considered amenable to any
favorable or unfavorable Despite the improper formal offer of AAA's testimony, the defense failed to make a timely
effects resulting from the objection to the presentation of such testimonial evidence. Accused-appellant in fact
evidence proceeded with the trial of the case and, as the CA noted, "even subjected the witness to a
rigorous cross-examination".

Since the offer of evidence is made at the trial, Josielene's request for subpoena duces tecum
is premature. She will have to wait for trial to begin before making a request for the issuance
Objection may be made once
of a subpoena duces tecum covering Johnny's hospital records. It is when those records are
Chan v Chan evidence is offered, NOT
produced for examination at the trial, that Johnny may opt to object, not just to their admission
prior to the offer
in evidence, but more so to their disclosure. Section 24 (c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence
quoted above is about non-disclosure of privileged matters.

In the case at bar, the photocopy of the birth certificate was formally offered in evidence and
marked as Exhibit "B". It was offered to prove (a) the fact of birth of the victim, and (b) the fact
Objection on the purpose for
that the victim was below twelve years old when she was ravished on December 13, 1991.
which a document is offered
The defense objected to the purpose for which Exhibit "B" was being offered, but did not object
People v Boras is NOT NECESSARILY an
to the presentation of the photocopied birth certificate which is merely treated as a secondary
objection on the presentation
evidence. Having failed to raise a valid and timely objection against the presentation of this
of secondary evidence
secondary evidence the same became a primary evidence, and the same is deemed admitted
and the other party is bound thereby.

Sec. 38. Ruling

According to Judge Cajot, he did not act on the offer of exhibits by the defendants to give the
plaintiffs the opportunity to interpose their objections thereto, and lays the blames on the
defendants because they did not file a motion for a ruling on their offer of evidence. This
contention has no merit. Rule 132, §36 of the Rules on Evidence specifically provides that "an
Report on the Judicial Audit offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of the offer
Ruling must be made
Conducted in RTC Branches unless a different period is allowed by the court," while §38 provides that "the ruling of the court
immediately after objection
29, 56 & 57 must be given immediately after the objection is made, unless the court desires to take
reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented." It does not appear that Judge Cajot
allowed the plaintiffs a longer period within which to object to the defendants' offer of evidence.
Hence, he should have made his ruling after three (3) days following the presentation of the
evidence in view of the absence of objection by the plaintiffs.

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 36 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
Sec. 39. Striking out answer

If the witness answers before Respondents had every opportunity to object to the questions the witnesses were asked and
the adverse party can object, the answers the latter gave during the trial, based on Sec 36, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Gochan v Gochan the latter may move to have As to the striking out of answers, Sec 39, Rule 132 may be referred to. Respondents have not
such answer stricken off the shown that they were in any way denied their right to object to questions propounded in the
record course of the hearing.

Sec. 40. Tender of excluded evidence

While trial courts have the discretion to admit or exclude evidence, such power is exercised
only when the evidence has been formally offered. For a long time, the Court has recognized
that during the early stages of the development of proof, it is impossible for a trial court judge
to know with certainty whether evidence is relevant or not, and thus the practice of excluding
evidence on doubtful objections to its materiality should be avoided.
While private respondent made a "Tender of Excluded Evidence," such is not the tender
Yu v CA contemplated by the above-quoted rule, for obviously, the insurance policy and application
were not formally offered much less presented before the trial court. At most, said "Tender of
Excluded Evidence" was a manifestation of an undisputed fact that the subject documents
were declared inadmissible by the trial court even before these were presented during trial. It
was not the kind of plain, speedy and adequate remedy which private respondent could have
resorted to instead of the petition for certiorari she filed before the Court of Appeals. It did not
in any way render the said petition moot.
Evidence excluded by the trial
court must still be offered to It has been repeatedly ruled that where documentary evidence was rejected by the lower court
be considered on appeal and the offeror did not move that the same be attached to the record, the same cannot be
considered by the appellate court, as documents forming no part of proofs before the appellate
Fortune Tobacco v CIR
court cannot be considered in disposing the case. For the appellate court to consider as
evidence, which was not offered by one party at all during the proceedings below, would
infringe the constitutional right of the adverse party to due process of law.

If the petitioner is keen on having the RTC admit the CA's Decision for whatever it may be
worth, he could have included the same in his offer of exhibits. If an exhibit sought to be
presented in evidence is rejected, the party producing it should ask the court's permission to
have the exhibit attached to the record.
Catacutan v People
Any evidence that a party desires to submit for the consideration of the court must be formally
offered by him otherwise it is excluded and rejected and cannot even be taken cognizance of
on appeal. The rules of procedure and jurisprudence do not sanction the grant of evidentiary
value to evidence which was not formally offered.

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 37 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
RULE 133 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

Sec. 1. Preponderance of evidence

In a counterclaim, the burden of proving the existence of the claim lies with the defendant, by
Burden of proof lies with the the quantum of evidence required by law, which in this case is preponderance of evidence.
Ogawa v Menigishi party who asserts his/her "Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on
right either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of
evidence" or "greater weight of credible evidence."

Plaintiff must rely on the Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the
strength of his own evidence truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is
Sps Sevilla v CA
and not upon the weakness offered in opposition thereto. If plaintiff claims a right granted or created by law, he must prove
of his opponent. his claim by competent evidence.

Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

[Proof beyond reasonable doubt] lies in the fact that in a criminal prosecution, the State is
arrayed against the subject; it enters the contest with a prior inculpatory finding in its hands;
with unlimited means of command; with counsel usually of authority and capacity, who are
regarded as public officers, as therefore as speaking semi-judicially, and with an attitude of
tranquil majesty often in striking contrast to that of defendant engaged in a perturbed and
distracting struggle for liberty if not for life. These inequalities of position, the law strives to
Pro reo principle meet by the rule that there is to be no conviction where there is reasonable doubt of guilt.
Amanquiton v People However, proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only moral certainty or that degree of proof
Equipoise rule which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
Pro reo principle - If inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with
his guilt, the former is preferred.
Equipoise rule - Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on
which side the evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.

It has been the consistent ruling of this Court that receipts for registered letters including return
receipts do not themselves prove receipt; they must be properly authenticated to serve as
Proof that notice of dishonor proof of receipt of the letters, claimed to be a notice of dishonor. To be sure, the presentation
was sent NOT sufficient; of the registry card with an unauthenticated signature, does not meet the required proof beyond
San Mateo v People
actual receipt MUST be reasonable doubt that the accused received such notice. It is not enough for the prosecution
proved to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to the accused. The prosecution must also prove
actual receipt of said notice, because the fact of service provided for in the law is reckoned
from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the accused.

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 38 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
Sec. 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for conviction

Under Rule 133, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, an extra-judicial confession shall not be
sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti, which is
Extrajudicial confession + defined as the body of the crime and, in its primary sense, means a crime has actually been
People v Licayan corpus delicti = sufficient committed. Applied to a particular offense, it is the actual commission by someone of the
ground for conviction particular crime charged. In this case, aside from the admission made by accused appellant,
the bruised and battered body of the victim herself recovered at the exact spot described by
accused-appellant conclusively established the corroborating evidence of corpus delicti.

Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient

The circumstances proved must be concordant with each other, consistent with the hypothesis
Conviction based on that the accused is guilty and, at the same time, inconsistent with any hypothesis other than
circumstantial evidence must that of guilt.
People v Abdulah exclude each and every In this case, nevertheless, we find appellant liable only for the death of Evelyn and Jovy, there
hypothesis consistent with his being no evidence to show that he also abducted Romelyn. While the prosecution witnesses
innocence testified that appellant intended to proceed to the club where Romelyn worked, no evidence
was produced that he, in fact, reached the club and fetched Romelyn from there.

Circumstances proved must


constitute an unbroken chain The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
which leads to one fair and conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence "which indirectly proves a fact in
Espineli v People reasonable conclusion that issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established." All the
points to the accused, to the circumstances must be consistent with one another, consistent with the hypothesis that the
exclusion of all others as the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent.
guilty person

Sec. 5. Substantial evidence

Basic is the rule that, in administrative cases, the quantum of evidence necessary to find an
Evidence NOT substantial
individual administratively liable is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence does not
Office of the Ombudsman v when two separate audit
necessarily mean preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases, but such kind of
Zaldarriaga reports have conflicting
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion or
results
evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs.

Sec. 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence

The matter of deciding who to present as a witness for the prosecution is not for the defendant
Trial court’s authority to stop
or the trial court to decide, as it is the prerogative of the prosecutor. This is because the
Go v Looyuko further evidence should be
prosecution is tasked to produce and adduce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Sans such
exercised with caution
evidence, a dismissal of the criminal case on a demurrer to the evidence is proper.

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 39 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
The proviso in Sec 6 of Rule 133 clearly grants the trial court the authority and discretion to
stop further testimonial evidence on the ground that additional corroborative testimony has no
more persuasive value as the evidence on that particular point is already so full. The discretion
granted by the above proviso has the clear caveat that this power should be exercised with
caution, more so in criminal cases where proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for the
conviction of the accused.

Sec. 7. Evidence on motion

Sec 7 of Rule 133 NOT a In Bravo Jr., we allowed evidence on minority by admitting the certified true copy of the birth
basis for admitting evidence certificate attached to a motion for bail even if it was not formally offered in evidence. This was
not formally offered but due to the fact that the birth certificate was properly filed in support of a motion for bail to prove
Parel v Prudencio marked during the petitioner's minority which was never challenged by the prosecution and it already formed part
presentation of testimonial of the records of the case. The rule referred to in the Bravo case was Section 7 of Rule 133 of
evidence or attached in the Rules of Court and not Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which is the one
memorandum applicable to the present case.

Rule on DNA Evidence

DNA print or identification technology is now recognized as a uniquely effective means to link
a suspect to a crime, or to absolve one erroneously accused, where biological evidence is
available. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both
DNA identification now inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can aid immensely in determining a more accurate
People v Umanito recognized as source of account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing the
evidence acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case.
If a substantial amount of the identifying features is the same, the DNA or fingerprint is deemed
to be a match. But then, even if only one feature of the DNA or fingerprint is different, it is
deemed not to have come from the suspect.

If NOT a match, excluded: In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among
other things, the following data: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the
DNA analysis excluding possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
putative father = conclusive whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the
proof of non-paternity qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
Herrera v Alba If match, NOT excluded: It is not enough to state that the child's DNA profile matches that of the putative father. A
W < 99.9 = corroborative complete match between the DNA profile of the child and the DNA profile of the putative father
evidence does not necessarily establish paternity. Trial courts should require at least 99.9% as a
minimum value of the Probability of Paternity ("W") prior to a paternity inclusion. The accuracy
W ≥ 99.9 = refutable of W estimates is higher when the putative father, mother and child are subjected to DNA
presumption of paternity analysis compared to those conducted between the putative father and child alone.

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 40 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.
There are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action which parties have
to face: a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical
Any physical residue of the resemblance between the putative father and child.
Estate of Rogelio Ong v Diaz long dead parent could be Death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as
resorted to there exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA. This includes blood, saliva, and other
body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones. Petitioner has not shown the impossibility of obtaining
an appropriate biological sample that can be utilized for the conduct of DNA testing.

When Webb raised the DNA issue, the rule governing DNA evidence did not yet exist, the
country did not yet have the technology for conducting the test, and no Philippine precedent
Due process does not require
had as yet recognized its admissibility as evidence. Consequently, the idea of keeping the
Lejano v People the State to preserve the
specimen secure even after the trial court rejected the motion for DNA testing did not come
semen specimen
up. Indeed, neither Webb nor his co-accused brought up the matter of preserving the specimen
in the meantime.

2017 Evidence Case Doctrines (Atty. Charlie Mendoza) | Ulah Urubio Page 41 of 41
CAVEAT: This compilation has not yet undergone proofreading. If there are any mistakes, please let me know.