BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY LECTURE ON EVIDENCE

BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY
College of Law
LECTURE ON EVIDENCE
for
2017 BAR EXAMINATION
JUDGE GENER M. GITO, LL.M., D.C.L.

Evidence, defined
• Rule 128, Sec. 1
• Evidence is the means,

sanctioned by these rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a
matter of fact.
Scope and Applicability
• The rules of evidence shall be the same in
all courts and in all trials and hearings,
except as otherwise provided by law or these
rules. (Sec. 2, Rule 128)
• The rule does not apply to election cases,
land registration and cadastral cases,
naturalization and insolvency proceedings,
except by analogy or in a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and
convenient (Sec. 4, Rule 1)
Illustration
• Ong Chia vs. Republic, 328 SCRA 749
• The RTC granted the petitioner’s petition for
naturalization. The CA reversed the decision on the
ground that the RTC admitted evidence which were
not formally offered in evidence in violation of Sec.
34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
• According to SC, the rule on formal offer of
evidence is not applicable to petition for
naturalization unless applied by analogy or in a
suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient.
Illustration
• Sugar Regulatory Administration vs. Tormon,
G.R. No. 195640, December 4, 2012
• The general rule is that administrative agencies are
not bound by the technical rules on evidence. It can
accept documents which cannot be admitted in a
judicial proceeding where the Rules of Court are
strictly observed. It can choose to give weight or
disregard such evidence, depending on its
trustworthiness.
Illustration
• The technical rules of evidence are not binding on
labor tirbunals (Manalo vs. TNS Phil. G.R. No.
208567, November 26, 2014). Thus, written
statements of certain employees can be admitted
even if they were cross-examined. The rules of
evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings
before the NLRC which are summary in nature and
decisions may be made on the basis of position
papers (Castillo vs. Prudentialife Plans, Inc., GR
No. 196142, March 26, 2014)
Illustration
• Parol evidence rule, like other rules of
evidence, should not be strictly applied in
labor cases. Hence, a Labor Arbiter is not
precluded from accepting and evaluating
evidence other than, and even contrary to,
what is stated in the CBA (Cirtek
Employees Labor Union-Federation of
Free Workers vs. Cirtek Electronics, 650
SCRA 656-663)
Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases
• The burden of proof is • The burden of proof is
preponderance of evidence. proof beyond reasonable
• Offer of compromise is not doubt.
an admission of liability. • Offer of compromise, as a
• The concept of general rule is an implied
presumption of innocence admission of guilt.
does not apply. • Presumption of innocence
• Evidence of character is does apply.
admissible if the issue of • Prosecution is not allowed
character is involved (Sec. to prove the bad moral
51(b), Rule 130). character of the accused
even if pertinent to the
issue, unless in rebuttal (Sec.
50(a), Rule 130).
When is evidence necessary?
Issue of Fact
Instances where evidence is no
longer required:
When the pleadings in the a civil case fail to tender an issue.
judgment on the pleading will ensue in accordance with Rule 34.
When parties stipulated on certain facts.
When a fact is subject to judicial notice.
When the fact is judicially admitted
When the law presumes the truth of a fact.

Proof vs. Evidence
Proof is the product of

evidence.
Evidence is the medium of

proof.
Factum probandum vs.
factum probans
• Factum probandum is the fact or proposition to be
established, while factum probans is the fact or
material evidencing the fact or proposition to
be established.
• The factum probandum is the fact to be proved; it
is the fact which is in issue in a case and to
which the evidence is directed. On the other
hand, factum probans is the probative or
evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in
issue.
Illustration
• In a suit involving damage to property caused
by the negligence of the defendant, the factum
probandum is the negligence of the defendant
that caused damage to the property of the
plaintiff. The factum probans are the evidences,
whether it be object, testimonial, documentary,
to prove the negligence of the defendant.
Illustration
• In civil cases, the factum probandum is the
elements of the cause of action which are
denied by the defendant.
• In criminal cases the factum probandum refers to
matters which the prosecution must prove
beyond reasonable doubt in order to justify the
conviction.
• RA 10591 – Illegal possession of firearm
• RA 9165 – Dangerous Drugs Act
Admissibility of Evidence
• Rule 128, Section 3
• Evidence is admissible when it is

relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules.
Admissibility involves two
questions:
Relevancy
Competency
Relevancy
• It is the relationship of evidence to the fact in
issue. If the evidence will tend to prove the fact in
issue, then the evidence is relevant. If there is no
connection at all, then the evidence is not relevant.
• How do you determine the connection of evidence

with the fact in issue?
• It is not matter of law, rather it is a matter of logic.

Relevancy
• Evidence must have such a relation

to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non-
existence. (Sec. 4, Rule 128)
Relevancy
• To be relevant, evidence must relate
to an issue of fact. If not, then it is
irrelevant.
• If you introduce evidence for a fact
not alleged in the pleading, then the
introduction of such evidence may
be objected for being irrelevant.
Problem
• A was charged for killing B. The information
was captioned as Murder. However, the
Information failed to allege circumstances
which would qualify the killing to murder.
During trial, the prosecution introduced
evidence of treachery.
• If you are the counsel for the defense, what
procedural action will you do to protect the
interest of your client?
Answer
• I will object to the presentation of evidence of
treachery on the ground of relevancy. The
qualifying circumstance was not put as an issue
for failure to allege the same in the
Information.
• Under Section 8, Rule 110, it is required that
the qualifying and aggravating circumstance
must be specified in the Information.
Section 8, Rule 110
• Designation of the Offense - The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the
offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, and specify
its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances. If there is no designation of
the offense, reference shall be made to the
section or subsection of the statute punishing
it.
People vs. Feliciano, May 5, 2014
• In Anti-Hazing Law, disguise is an aggravating
circumstances. The information was not able to allege
that the participants in the hazing were wearing mask.
But, they were able to prove the same during trial.
• Is it proper for the Court to appreciate the fact of
wearing mask as an aggravating circumstance?
• No. The failure to state an aggravating circumstance,
even if duly proven during the trial, will not be
appreciated as such. It will violate the constitutional
right of the accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him.
Collateral Matters
• Evidence on collateral matters shall not be
allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue. (Sec. 4, Rule
128)
• Collateral matters are not direct evidence. It is
just additional or auxiliary evidence to the fact
in issue. It could not directly prove the fact in
issue.
Competency
• It is one that is not excluded by the law

or rules.
• If the test of relevancy is logic and

common sense, the test of competency
is the law or rules.
Kinds of Admissibility
• Multiple Admissibility – Evidence which is admissible for two
or more purposes.
Res gestae
• Example: Declaration of dying person Dying

declaration
Declaration
against interest
• Conditional admissibility – Sometimes the

relevance of an evidence is not readily apparent
at the time it is offered, but the relevance of
which may be seen when connected to other
pieces of evidence not yet offered. In which
case, such evidence may be admitted
conditionally.
• The doctrine of curative admissibility allows
a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible
evidence to answer the opposing party’s
previous introduction of inadmissible evidence.
Thus, a party who first introduces either
irrelevant or incompetent evidence into the trial
cannot complain of the subsequent admission
of similar evidence from the adverse party
relating to the same subject matter
Example
• In a collection suit filed by A against B, A
introduced evidence that B borrowed money
from C, D and E, but did not pay. B objects on
the ground that it is immaterial and constitute
character assassination. Nevertheless, the Court
allowed.
• B, can introduce evidence that he already paid
his debt to C, D and E.
Classification of Evidence
Direct Circumstantial
• It proves a fact without • It is that evidence which

the need to make an indirectly proves a fact in
inference from another issue through an inference
fact. which the fact finder
draws from the evidence
established .
Conviction by circumstantial
Evidence, Requisites:
There is more than one
circumstance
The facts from which the

inference are derived are
proven
The combination of all

the circumstances is such
as to produce conviction
beyond reasonable doubt
Cumulative Corroborative
• It refers to evidence of • It is one which is

the same kind and supplementary to that
character as that already already given tending to
given which tend to prove strengthen or confirm it.
the same proposition. It is additional evidence
of different character.
Positive Negative
• Evidence is said to be • It is negative when the

positive when a witness witness states that an
affirms in the stand that a event did not occur or
certain state of facts does that state of facts alleged
exist or a certain event to exist did not exist.
happened.
Weight of positive and negative
evidence
• The defense of denial is viewed with disfavor
for being inherently weak. It cannot prevail over
the positive and credible testimony of
prosecution witnesses (People vs. Reyes, GR
No. 194606, Feb. 18, 2015)
• Greater weight is given to positive identification
of the accused by the prosecution witnesses
than the accused’s denial (People vs. Solina,
January 13, 2016)
Burden of Proof
Section 1, Rule 131
Burden of Proof – Burden

of proof is the duty of a
party to present evidence on
the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense
by the amount of evidence
required by law.
Relevant concepts on burden of proof
• In civil cases, it is a basic rule that the party making
allegations has the burden of proving them by
preponderance of evidence. By preponderance of
evidence is meant that evidence adduced by one side is,
as a whole, superior to that of the other side (NFF
Industrial Corporation vs. G& L Brokerage,
January 12, 2015).
• In administrative cases, the complainant bears the
burden in proving the averments of his complaint by
substantial evidence. However, conjectures and
suppositions are not sufficient to prove accussations
(Lorenzana vs. Austria, April 2, 2014).
Relevant concepts on burden of proof
• The burden of proof that a debt was

contracted lies with the creditor-plaintiff. He
who asserts, not who denies, must prove
(Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank vs.
Dailo, 453 SCRA 283).
• However, he who pleads payment has the
burden of proving it. (Bognot vs. RRI
Lending, September 24, 2014)
What is the test for determining where the
burden of proof lies?
• Ask: which party to an action or suit will fail
if he offers no evidence competent to show
the facts averred as basis for the relief he
seeks to obtain.
• If the defendant has affirmative defenses, he
has the burden of proving them. (Aznar
Brothers Realty vs. Aying, 458 SCRA 496)
What is burden of evidence?
• It is the duty of a party to go forward with
evidence to overthrow the prima facie evidence
against him (People vs. CA, February 25,
2015)
• If the accused admits the killing, the burden of
evidence is shifted to the accused to prove his
defenses (Flores vs. People, February 27,
2013)
Presumption
• It is an assumption of fact resulting from

the rule of law which require such fact to
be assumed from another fact or group
of facts found or otherwise established
in an action (Black Law Dictionary)
Concept • It is an inference of the existence or non-
existence of a fact which courts are
permitted to draw from proof of other
facts (In the matter of the Intestate of
Delgado and Rustia, 480 SCRA 334)
Examples
• Prior rents or installments had been paid when
a receipt for the later installment is produced
(Sec. 3(i), Rule 131; Art. 1177)
• Common Carrier is presumed to be liable
(1756)
• Money paid by one to another was due to the
latter (Sec. 3(f), Rule 131)
• Official duty has been regularly performed
(Sec. 3(m), Rule 131)
What is the effect of presumption?
• A party in whose favor the legal

presumption exists may rely on and
invoke such legal presumption to
establish a fact in issue. One need not
introduced evidence to prove the fact for
a presumption is prima facie proof of
the fact presumed (Diesel
Construction vs. UPSI Property, 549
SCRA 12)
Kinds of Presumption
Conclusive – when the presumption

becomes irrebuttable upon the presentation
of evidence and any evidence tending to
rebut the presumption is not admissible
Disputable – if it may be contradicted by

other evidence.
Conclusive Presumptions under the
Rules
Section 2, Rule 131
• Whenever a party has, by his own declaration,
act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led
another to believe a particular thing is true, and
to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any
litigation arising out of such declaration, act or
omission, be permitted to falsify it;
• The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of
his landlord at the time of the commencement
of the relation of landlord and tenant between
them.
Effect of Disputable Presumption
• The effect of a presumption upon a

burden of prrof is to create the need of
presenting evidence to overcome the
prima facie case created by the
presumption. If no contrary proof is
offered, the presumption will prevail
(Diaz vs. People, GR No. 2018113,
December 2, 2013)
Disputable Presumption Under the Rules
• Sec. 3(m), Rule 131

• That official duty has been regularly performed.
• The presumption of regularity in the
performance of official functions cannot, by
itself, overcome the presumption of innocence.
Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is
nothing else, is required to erase all doubts as to
the culpability of the accused (Zafra vs.
People, 671 SCRA 396).
Disputable Presumption Under the Rules
• In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one

found in possession of and used a forged
document is the forger and therefore guilty of
falsification. If a person had in his possession a
falsified document and made use of it, taking
advantage of it and profiting from it, the clear
presumption is that he is the material author of
the falsification (Maliwat vs. CA, 256 SCRA
718)
Quantum of Evidence
Proof beyond reasonable doubt

• Rule 133, Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt does not mean such a degree of proof
as, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
Quantum of Proof
• Rule 133, ?Section 1
• Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party
having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence. In determining where the
preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues
involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying,
their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the
facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which
they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony,
their interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the
trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses,
though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater
number.
Quantum of Proof
• Rule 133, Section 5 – Substantial evidence
• In cases filed before administrative or quasi-
judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established
if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.
• It refers to such relevant evidence which
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion (Montinola vs. PAL, Sept.
14, 2014)
Quantum of Proof
• Will the acquittal an administrative result in
the dismissal of the criminal case?
• No. It will not follow. Administrative and
criminal proceedings are two different
proceedings. They involve different procedure.
• Thus, the prosecution is not precluded from
adducing evidence to discharge the burden of
proof required in criminal cases. (Paredes vs.
CA, 528 SCRA 577)
Quantum of Proof
• Clear and convincing evidence
• It is clear and convincing if it produces in the
mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or
conviction as to the allegation sought to be
established. It is intermediate, being more than
preponderance of evidence, but not to the extent
of such certainty as is required beyond
reasonable doubt in criminal cases. (Black Law
Dictionary).
Quantum of Proof
• When is quantum of lear and convincing
evidence applied?
• In extradition proceedings (Govt., of
Hongkong vs. Olalia, 521 SCRA 470).
• In proving justifying circumstance (People
vs. Fontanilla, 664 SCRA 150).
What need not be proved?
Matters which are within the

realm of judicial notice
Facts which are judicially

admitted
Facts which are presumed by law

Judicial Notice
• A. Judicial Notice, Mandatory
• A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history,
forms of government and symbols of nationality,
the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals, the political
constitution and history of the Philippines, the
official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature,
the measure of time, and the geographical
divisions. (Sec. 1, Rule 129)
Questions
• Is it required to present evidence on the existence
of the treaty of Paris?
of a country?
• Is it required to present evidence to prove the
deliberation of Congress?
of a foreign law?
• What processual presumption?
Judicial Notice
• B. Judicial Notice, Discretionary
• A court may take judicial notice of matters

which are of 1) public knowledge, or 2) are
capable of unquestionable demonstration,
or 3) ought to be known to judges because
of their judicial functions. (Sec. 2, Rule 129)
Problem
• There are two (2) civil cases pending between the
same parties. One is being heard by Branch 92. The
other one is being heard by Branch 93.
• Can Branch 92 take judicial notice of the case
pending in Branch 93?
• Suppose the two cases are pending in the same
branch, which is Branch 92, can the Judge take
judicial notice of the other case between the
same parties?
Answer
• A court will take judicial notice of its own acts
and records in the same case (Republic vs.
CA, 277 SCRA 633).
• Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice
of the contents of the records of other cases,
even such cases have been tried or pending in
the same court (LBP vs. Yatco Agricultural
Enerprises, Jan. 15, 2014).
How can the judge take judicial notice of
the case pending in the same Court?
• When in the absence of any objectiion and with
the knowledge of the opposing party, the
contents of said other case are clearly referred
to by title and number in a pending actionand
adopted and read into the records of the other
case;
• When they are requested to form part of the
record of the other case (Tabuena vs. CA, 196
SCRA 650).
Judicial Admission
• D. Judicial Admissions
• Sec. 4, Rules 129
• An admission, verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings
in the same case, does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted only by
showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was
made.
Requisites of Judicial Admission
It must be made by a party to a

case
It must be made in the course of

the proceedings in the same case
It does not require a particular

form.
In the course of the proceedings:
• Judicial admission are admission in the
following:
• In the pleadings
• During trial, either verbal or written
manifestation
• During pre-trial
• In other stages of the judicial proceedings
• (Manzanila vs. Waterfields Industries, July
18, 2014)
Implied admission
• Rule 8, Section 8. How to contest such documents. — When an
action or defense is founded upon a written instrument,
copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as
provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and
due execution of the instrument shall be deemed
admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically
denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the
facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply
when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to
the instrument or when compliance with an order for an
inspection of the original instrument is refused.
Judicial admission
• Admission in the pre-trial of civil cases (Sec. 2(d), Rule
18)
• Admission during pre-trial in criminal case does not
result to judicial admission. It must comply with Section
2, Rule 118.
• Section 2 Pre-trial agreement. — All agreements or
admissions made or entered during the pre-trial
conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by
the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be
used against the accused. The agreements covering the
matters referred to in Section 1 of this Rule shall be
approved by the court.
Judicial admission
• How about the stipulations of facts during
trial?
• It is not required that it be signed the lawyer
and the accused. The stipulation of acts are
already contained in the TSN. The lawyer is
presumed to have prima facie authority to make
relevant admission by pleadings, by oral or
written stipulation which unless withdrawn are
conclusive. (People vs. Hernadez, 206 SCRA
25; Silot vs. Dela Rosa, 543 SCRA 533)
Admission
• How about admission in an amended
pleading?
• Section 8, Rule 10, provides that when a
pleading is amended, the amended pleading
supersedes the pleading that it amends and the
admission in the superseded pleading may be
received in evidence against the pleader.
• But the admission will be treated as extra-
judicial admission (Torres vs. CA, 131
SCRA 24; Ching vs. CA, 331 SCRA 16)
Implied admission
• How about admission in a dismissed
pleading?
• It is merely extra-judicial judicial
admission (Servicewide Specialist
Inc., vs. CA, 257 SCRA 643)
Judicial admission
• How about admission of a proposed
state witness?
• If the motion to discharge an accused as
a state witness is denied, his sworn
statement, submitted to support the
motion, shall be inadmissible in evidence
(Sec. 17, Rule 119)
What is the effect of judicial admission?
• Judicial admission are legally binding on the

party making the admission. It is an established
principle that judicial admission cannot be
contradicted by the admitter who is the party
himself and binds the person who makes the
same, absent any showing that this was made
through palpable mistake, no amount of
rationalization can offset it (PCIC vs. Central
Colleges of the Phil. 666 SCRA 540).
Judicial Admission
• D. Judicial Admissions
• How judicial admissions may be
contradicted?
• By showing that the admission was made
through palpable mistake
• By showing that no such admission was
made.
Rule 130
Rules of Admissibility
Object Evidence
• Section 1, Rule 130 - Objects as

evidence are those addressed to the
senses of the court. When an object is
relevant to the fact in issue, it may be
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the
court.
Requisite for Admissibility of
Object Evidence
The evidence must be relevant
The evidence must be competent
The evidence must be authenticated by a

witness
The object evidence must be formally

offered in evidence
Right against self-incrimination
vis-à-vis object evidence
Rule
The right against
self-incrimination
cannot be invoked
against object
evidence
Demonstrative Evidence
It is not the real

thing, but it
demonstrates the
real thing.
Categories of Object Evidence
Objects that have readily
identifiable marks (unique object)
Object that are made identifiable
(object made unique)
Object with no identifying mark
Links in the Chain of Custody
• First, the seizure and marking of the confiscated
drugs recovered from the accused
• Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer
• Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination
• Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug by the forensic chemist to the court
(People vs. Kamad, 610 SCRA 295)
Documentary Evidence
Section 2, Rule 130

• Documents as evidence consist of
writings or any material containing
letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written
expressions offered as proof of
their contents.
Best Evidence Rule
• When the subject of inquiry is
the contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible other
than the original document itself.
• (Section 3, Rule 130)

Problem
• At the trial for violation of RA 9165, the
prosecution presented as evidence of selling
drugs, the xerox copy of the marked money
used in buying shabu. The defense objected to
the presentation of the xerox copy of the
marked money for violation of the best
evidence rule.
• If you were the judge, how would you rule
on the objection?
Answer
• I will overrule the objection. Best evidence rule
applies when a document is offered to prove
the contents thereof. Here the the marked
money is not offered as documentary evidence
but as an object evidence. It was offered to
prove that selling of drugs occurred. Thus, best
evidence rule does not apply.
When do you apply the best
evidence rule?
If the matter inquired into is the

contents of the document, then
best evidence rule applies
What is considered to be
original document?
• The original of a document is one the contents of
which are the subject of inquiry.
• When a document is in two or more copies executed
at or about the same time, with identical contents, all
such copies are equally regarded as originals.
• When an entry is repeated in the regular course of
business, one being copied from another at or near
the time of the transaction, all the entries are likewise
equally regarded as originals.
• (Section 4, Rule 130)
Exceptions to best evidence rule
• When the original consists of numerous
accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time
and the fact sought to be established from them
is only the general result of the whole; and
• When the original is a public record in the

custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office.
• Section 3, Rule 130

Exceptions to best evidence rule
• When the original has been lost or destroyed, or
cannot be produced in court, without bad faith
on the part of the offeror.
• When the original is in the custody or under the

control of the party against whom the evidence
is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;

How to introduce secondary
evidence if the original is lost?
Offeror must prove the existence and
execution of the original document
Offeror must show the cause of its

unavailability such as loss, or destruction of
the original.
Offeror must show that the unavailability
was not due to his bad faith.
Flow chart
Section 5,
Rule 130
Existence Execution Loss Contents

What is secondary evidence?
Sec. 5, Rule the
a copy of 130 testimony
the of
original witnesses
a recital of its
contents in
some authentic
document, or by
How to introduce secondary evidence when the
original is in the custody of the adverse party?
The original exists
Document is under the custody or control of the

adverse party
Proponent has given the other party reasonable

opportunity to produce the document
The other party failed to produce the original

document despite the reasonable notice
original consists of numerous accounts?
Original consists of numerous

accounts
They cannot be examined in court

without great loss of time
The fact sought to be established

from them is only the general result.
original is a public record?
• When the original of a document is in the

custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office, its contents may be proved by a
certified copy issued by the public officer in
custody thereof.
Parol Evidence
• When the terms of an agreement have been

reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there
can be, between the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of such
terms other than the contents of the written
agreement.
Applicability
Applies only when there is a
written contract
Applies only to parties and
their successor-in-interest
It also applies to will
Instances where a party may modify, explain or
add to the terms of written agreement.
• (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the written agreement;
• (b) The failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent and agreement of
the parties thereto;
• (c) The validity of the written agreement; or
• (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by
the parties or their successors in interest
after the execution of the written
agreement.
Illustration 1
• Lito executed a will wherein he bequeathed the
amount of 1 million pesos to Carla Rubio. Lito
died. When his will was probated and later on
about to be executed, it turned out that there were
three (3) Carla Rubios’ who are all friends of Lito.
• Assuming that this fact was put as an issue, may
parol evidence be allowed to clarify the ambuguit?
Yes. Because there is intrinsic ambiguity in the will.
Under the rules, will is included in the word
“agreement”
Illustration 2
• Lito sold the land to Carla for the amount of
200,000. The value of the land is 20M pesos. But,
what the parties actually agreed was Lito would
borrow from Carla the amount of 200,000 and use
the land as security.
• In an action to recover the parcel of land, may Lito
introduce evidence of the true agreement of the
parties.
• YES. Because of the failure of the written
agreement to express the true intent of the parties
thereto.
Illustration 3
• Lito sold the land to Carla for 1M. They executed a
deed of sale. They both signed the same. However,
Carla has no cash of 1M. So she told Lito that she
would just go to the bank to withdraw. Carla left Lito
together with the DOS and the title to the land.
Unknown to Lito, Carla went to the RD to have the
sale registered.
• In an action for cancellation of sale, can Lito introduce
evidence to prove that there is no consideration.
• YES. Because the issue is the validity of the
instrument.
Illustration 4
• Lito borrowed money from Carla evidenced by PN
which is due and demandable on Jan. 4, 2017. Come
Jan. 4, 2017, Lito did not pay. Carla sued Lito. Lito
argued that that Carla extended the maturity date of
the loan to Jan. 4, 2019. So the loan has not yet
matured. sold the land to Carla for 1M. Carla objected
citing parol evidence rule.
• Lito may introduced terms agreed upon by the parties
or successor in interest after the execution of the
written agreement.
PLEASE TAKE NOTE:
•A party must put them as issue

in his pleading
Problem
• A sells his house to B for 1M. They executed a
DOS. A refused to vacate thereafter. B filed a
recovery of possession of real property. A
contended that B agreed to lease out the same
property to A. B objects to the presentation of
evidence to prove lease contract on the ground
of parol evidence rule?
• Rule on the objection.
Answer
• Objection overruled.
• Parol evidence is not applicable. What is
sought to prove here is the oral contract
of lease.
Authentication and Proof of
Documents (Rule 132)
Authentication is very
important in the presentation
of evidence. Object and
documentary evidence must be
authenticated. It is preliminary
step in showing the
admissibility of an evidence.
Kinds of Document
Public Document
Private Document
Public Document
• Public documents are:
• (a) The written official acts, or records of the
official acts of the sovereign authority, official
bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether
of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
• (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary
public except last wills and testaments; and
• (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
private documents required by law to be entered
therein.
Private Document
All those which are

not public
documents
How do you authenticate
private document?
• SECTION 20. Proof of private document. —
Before any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
must be proved either:
• (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
written; or
• (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker.
• Any other private document need only be identified as
that which it is claimed to be.
When authentication is not required
• When the document is an ancient document
one within the context of Section 21, Rule 132.
• When evidence of authenticity of private
document not necessary. — Where a private
document is more than thirty years old, is
produced from a custody in which it would
naturally be found if genuine, and is
unblemished by any alterations or
circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence
of its authenticity need be given.
When authentication is not required
• When the genuineness and authenticity

of an actionable document have not
been specifically denied under oath by
the adverse party under Section 8, Rule
8.
• When the document is not offered as
authentic (Section 20, Rule 132)
Genuineness of Handwriting
• SECTION 22. How genuineness of handwriting
proved. - The handwriting of a person may be proved
by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of
such person because he has seen the person write, or has
seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness
has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired
knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence
respecting the handwriting may also be given by a
comparison, made by the witness or the court, with
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
Importance of knowing whether a
document is public or private
• If public document, authentication is not needed
• Private needs to be authenticated.
• SECTION 23. Public documents as evidence. —
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents
are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave
rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.
• SECTION 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every
instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as
provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further
proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie
evidence of the execution of the instrument or document
involved.
Testimonial Evidence
• Testimonial evidence is evidence
elicited from the mouth of the
witness.
• It is sometimes called as viva voce
evidence which literally means
“living voice” or by word of
mouth.
Qualification of a Witness
Section 20, Rule 130

• Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as
provided in the next succeeding section,
all persons who can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known their
perception to others, may be witnesses.
• He must also take oath or an
affirmation (Sec. 1, Rule 132)
Sect.
Factors not affecting the
20
competency of a witness
Religious or political belief
Interest in the outcome of the case
Conviction of a crime unless

otherwise provided by law
Disqualification of a Witness
Section 21, Rule 130. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity
or immaturity. — The following persons cannot be witnesses:
Those whose mental condition, at the time

of their production for examination, is
such that they are incapable of intelligently
making known their perception to others;
Children whose mental maturity is such as

to render them incapable of perceiving the
facts respecting which they are examined
and of relating them truthfully.
Rule on Examination of Child Witness
• Who is a child witness?

• Person below 18 years of age
• A child includes one over 18 years but is
found by the court as unable to fully take care
of himself or protect himself from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or
discrimination because of physical or mental
disability or condition (Sec. 4 (a), RECW, A.M.
004-07-SC).
Presumption of Competency
• Every child is presumed qualified to testify.
• To rebut the presumption, the burden of proof
lies on the party challenging his competence.
• If the court finds substantial doubt exist
regarding the ability of the child to perceive,
remember, communicate, distinguish truth
from falsehood, the court shall conduct a
competency examination.
• Sec. 6, RECW
Disqualification by Reason of
Death or Insanity
Section 23, Rule 130 – Disqualification by
reason of death or insanity of adverse party.
Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or

persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted,
against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or against a
person of unsound mind, upon a claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased
person or against such person of unsound mind,
cannot testify as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased
person or before such person became of
unsound mind.
Take Note:
This rule “applies only to

a civil case or special
proceeding over the estate
of the deceased or insane
person.” (Regalado)
Elements for Applicability
The suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of
a deceased or person of unsound mind.
The defendant in the case is the executor or administrator

or representative of the deceased or person of unsound
mind.
The witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of the plaintiff,
or person in whose behalf, the case is prosecuted.
The subject of testimony is as to any matter of fact

occurring before the death of such deceased person or
before such person became of unsound mind.
Problem
• A borrowed 2M pesos from B. Two weeks
thereafter A died. In the settlement of estate
proceeding of the estate of A, B is claiming the
amount of 2M from the estate of A through
the latter’s administrator. During the
presentation of evidence, B was called to testify
on their supposed agreement.
• The executor objected to the presentation
of B. Will the objection prosper?
Answer
• Yes, the objection will prosper. All the elements
of Dead Man Statute are present. The suit is
upon a claim against the estate of the deceased.
The defendant is the administrator. The witness
is the plaintiff. The testimony is on any matter
occurring during the lifetime of the deceased.
Question
• Supposing in the given problem, B executed an
SPA in favor of D to file a claim against the
estate of A through the latter’s administrator. D
was called to testify to substantiate the claim.
The administrator of A objected to the
presentation of D.
• Will the objection prosper?
Answer
• No. the objection will not prosper. Because in
this case, D is not prohibited to testify. He is
not the plaintiff, nor assignor of the plaintiff or
a person in whose behalf the case is
prosecuted.
• He is just the agent of the plaintiff.
Question
• Suppose that B is indebted to A in the
amount of 3M. The administrator of A filed
a collection suit against B. B denied the
claim saying that no such transaction
occurred. B presented himself as a witness?
His presentation was objected.
Answer
• Objection overruled. The suit is not a
claim against the estate of deceased
person. Further, the suit was filed by the
administrator against B (Sunga-Chan
vs. Chua, 363 SCRA 249).
Question
• Suppose that B is indebted to A in the
amount of 3M. The administrator of A filed
a collection suit against B. B filed a
counterclaim claiming that A borrowed the
amount of 2M from B during A’s lifetime. B
presented himself as a witness to prove the
counterclaim? His presentation was
objected.
Answer
• Objection sustained.
• A counterclaim is a claim against the
estate of the deceased as represented
by the Administrator.
Who are prohibited to testify?
• The plaintiff who has a claim against
the estate of the deceased: parties,
assignor of parties, person in whose
behalf the case is prosecuted.
• Thus, if the administrator is the
plaintiff, the rule does not apply.
What is the nature of the case?
•“upon a claim or demand

against the estate of the
deceased person or unsound
mind”
Disqualification by Marriage

• Disqualification by reason of marriage. —
During their marriage, neither the
husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of
the affected spouse, except in a civil case
by one against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed by one against
the other or the latter's direct descendants
or ascendants.
Illustration
• Before the marriage of H and W, W witnessed H
killing Y. W did not report the incident to the
police. Later, H and W got married. They had
falling out. Consequently, W reported the incident
she witnessed when they were still sweethearts.
• May the prosecution present W as a witness in
a murder case filed against H?
• Supposed W was called to testify after their
marriage had been annulled, would your
answer be the same?
Answer
• 1. Over the objection of H, the prosecution
may not call W to testify against H. To call W to
testify against H while their marriage is still
would violate the marital disqualification rule.
• 2. My answer would not be the same. Since the

marriage is not anymore existing, the marital
disqualification rule would not apply.
Exception
“Except in a civil case by one

against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime
committed by one against
the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants.
Problem
• W filed a collection suit against the father of H.
The father of the H called H to testify against
the W. W objected.
• Answer: The husband is barred to testify
against wife if the latter objects. It is not a case
by one spouse against the other but between a
spouse and the parent of the other.
Marital Disqualification Rule
Ordono vs. Daquigan, 62 SCRA 270
People vs. Quitado, 297 SCRA 1
Alvarez vs. Ramirez,

473 SCRA 72
May a spouse testify in a trial
where the other spouse is a co-
accused?
• Yes, except as against her husband.
• People vs. Quitado, 297 SCRA 1.
May a spouse testify in a trial
against her estranged
husband?
• Yes.
• Alvarez vs. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72.
Privilege Communication
• The husband or the wife, during or after the
marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication
received in confidence by one from the other
during the marriage except in a civil case by one
against the other, or in a criminal case for a
crime committed by one against the other or
the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.
(Sec. 24(a), Rule 130)
Marital Privilege
Communication
There must be a valid marriage
between the husband and wife
There is a communication received

in confidence by one from the other.
The confidential information was

received during marriage.
Illustration
• H and W were sweethearts. H confided something
to W and told the latter not to tell the same to
anyone. Later, they got married. After several years,
their Marriage got annulled. It turned out that what
was told by H to W was that he was the one who
bombed the hotel. In the prosecution for terrorism
against H, the prosecution called W to the witness
stand. H objection on the ground of “marital
privilege communication.
Answer
• Objection should be denied.
• The confidential information was
not received during marriage.
Question
• Supposing the information was received
by W from H during their marriage, but
W was called to testify after their
marriage was annulled. Will W be
allowed to testify over the objection of
H?
Answer
• No. W should not be allowed to testify
against H, if the latter objects. The wife
who received the information in
confidence may not be called to testify
thereon even after marriage.
When is information considered
confidential?
• The general rule is that communications
between spouses is presumed
confidential unless shown otherwise.
• Communications made in the presence
of third person are not confidential
unless the third person may be
considered as agent of the spouses.
Who is covered by the disqualification?
Only spouses are

covered. Third
person are not
• An attorney cannot, without the consent of his
client, be examined as to any communication
made by the client to him, or his advice given
thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
professional employment, nor can an attorney's
secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined,
without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge
of which has been acquired in such capacity
(Sec. 24(b), Rule 130)
There must be communication made by
client to the attorney, or advice given by the
lawyer to his client
The communication and advice must be
given in confidence
The communication or advice must be in the

course of the professional employment or
with the view to professional employment.
Is it necessary that there should be
lawyer-client relationship before the
rule may be applied?
• NO. The rules provides that
“communications or advice given with
the view to professional employment
Does the disqualification apply only
to lawyer?
• NO.
• The rule also applies to an attorney's
secretary, stenographer, or clerk who
received the information in their capacity
as such.
• A person authorized to practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case,
without the consent of the patient, be
examined as to any advice or treatment given by
him or any information which he may have
acquired in attending such patient in a
professional capacity, which information was
necessary to enable him to act in that capacity,
and which would blacken the reputation of the
patient (Sec. 24(c), Rule 130)
What are the information that may
not be disclosed?
• Any advice given to the client
• Any treatment given to the client
• Any information acquired in attending such
patient provided that the advice, treatment or
information was made or acquired in a
professional capacity
• The information sought to be disclosed would
tend to blacken the reputation of patient
• A minister or priest cannot, without the
consent of the person making the confession,
be examined as to any confession made to or
any advice given by him in his professional
character in the course of discipline enjoined by
the church to which the minister or priest
belongs. (Sec. 24(d), Rule 130)
• A public officer cannot be examined during his
term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official
confidence, when the court finds that the public
interest would suffer by the disclosure.(Sec.
24(e), Rule 130)
Parental and Filial Privilege

• Parental and filial privilege. — No
person may be compelled to
testify against his parents, other
direct ascendants, children or
other direct descendants.
Parental privilege
A parent cannot be
compelled to testify
against his child or
direct descendants
Filial privilege
A child may not be

compelled to testify
against his parent
or direct ascendants
Examination of Witnesses
• Rule 132, Section 1. Examination to be done in
open court. — The examination of witnesses
presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in
open court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless
the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the
question calls for a different mode of answer,
the answers of the witness shall be given orally.
Rights and Obligation of Witness
• (1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or insulting
questions, and from harsh or insulting demeanor;
• (2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice
require;
• (3) Not to be examined except only as to matters pertinent to
the issue;
• (4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a
penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; or
• (5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade his
reputation, unless it be to the very fact at issue or to a fact from
which the fact in issue would be presumed. But a witness must
answer to the fact of his previous final conviction for an offense.
Order of in the examination of an
individual witness Section 4, Rule
132
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent.

When leading question are allowed
• (a) On cross examination;
• (b) On preliminary matters;
• (c) When there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible
answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of
tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
• (d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
• (e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer,
director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation or of a partnership or association which is an
adverse party.
Impeachment of a witness
• Impeachment is basically a
technique employed usually as part
of the cross-examination to
discredit a witness by attacking his
credibility.
How to impeach a witness
• Section 11, Rule 132. Impeachment of adverse party's
witness. — A witness may be impeached by the party
against whom he was called, by contradictory
evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for
truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that
he has made at other times statements inconsistent
with his present testimony, but not by evidence of
particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown
by the examination of the witness, or the record of
the judgment, that he has been convicted of an
offense.
How to impeach a witness
• By contradictory evidence
• By evidence that his general reputation for truth,
honesty or integrity is bad
• By evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present testimony.
Impeachment by evidence of
inconsistent statement
• Before a witness can be impeached by evidence
that he has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his present testimony, the
statements must be related to him, with the
circumstances of the times and places and the
persons present, and he must be asked whether
he made such statements, and if so, allowed to
explain them. If the statements be in writing they
must be shown to the witness before any
question is put to him concerning them.
Admission
Section 26, Rule 130.
Admission of a party. —
The act, declaration or
omission of a party as to
a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against
him.
Confession
Section 33. Confession. — The

declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the
offense charged, or of any
offense necessarily included
therein, may be given in
evidence against him.
Admission and Confession
• It is a voluntary • Confession is an
acknowledgment acknowledgment of
made by a party of guilt.
the existence of truth • It is a specific type of
of a certain facts. admission.
• It includes confession. • Always express
• May be express or
implied.
EFFECT
The act, declaration or omission of a

party as to a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against him.
Classification of Admission
• Express or Implied
• Judicial or Extra-Judicial
• Adoptive Admission – this admission occurs
when a person manifests his assent to the
statements of another person. The admission
may be received in evidence if it can be shown
that a party adopted the statements his own.
Adoptive admission
• Adoptive admission may occur in the following:
• Expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement
made by another
• Hears a statement and later on essentially repeats it
• Utter an acceptance or builds upon the assertion of
another
• Replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points
raised by another but ignores further points which he
or she has heard the other make;
• Reads and subsequently signs a written statement made
by another
Effect of extrajudicial confession
• Rule 133, Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not
sufficient ground for conviction. — An extrajudicial confession
made by an accused, shall not be sufficient ground for
conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti.
• Corpus delicti is the “body of the crime” or the offense. It
means the actual commission of the crime and someone
is criminally responsible therefor.
• Elements: 1) proof of occurrence of a certain event; 2)
some person’s criminal responsibility for the act (People
vs. Boco, 309 SCRA 42)
Corpus Delicti in certain crimes
• In the prosecution for illegal drugs, the corpus delicti
is the drug itself (Fajardo vs. People, 677 SCRA
541)
• In theft, corpus delicti has two elements: 1)
property was lost by the owner; 2) that it was lost
by felonious taking (Zapanta vs. People, march
20, 2013)
• In illegal possession of firearm, the accused lack of
license or authority to possess or carry firearm is
the corpus delicti (Sayco vs. People, 547 SCRA
368)
Admission by Silence
SECTION 32. Admission by silence. —

An act or declaration made in the
presence and within the hearing or
observation of a party who does or says
nothing when the act or declaration is
such as naturally to call for action or
comment if not true, and when proper
and possible for him to do so, may be
given in evidence against him.
Offer of Compromise
• In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any
liability, and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror.
(Sec. 27, Rule 130)
• In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer
of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
• A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea
of guilty to a lesser offense, is not admissible in evidence against
the accused who made the plea or offer.
• An offer to pay or the payment of medical, hospital or other
expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible in evidence as
proof of civil or criminal liability for the injury.
Res Inter Alios Acta
“Things done between
strangers ought not to
injure those who are not
parties to them.”
Two branches of res inter alios acta
First Branch - The rights of a party cannot

be prejudiced by an act, declaration or
omission of another (Sec. 28, Rule 130)
Second Branch - The evidence of previous

conduct or similar acts at one time is not
admissible to prove that one did or did not do
the same at another time (Sec. 34, Rule 130)
Thus, Section 28, Rule 130:
FIRST BRANCH
Admission by third party. — The rights of

a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another,
except as hereinafter provided.
Is this applicable to judicial
admission?
• No. because res inter alios acta is applicable only

to extra-judicial admission but it does not cover
judicial admission because of the other accused
has the opportunity to cross-examine.
(Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan, 674 SCRA
420)
Exception to Sec. 28, Rule 130:
• SECTION 29. Admission by co-partner or
agent. — The act or declaration of a partner
or agent of the party within the scope of his
authority and during the existence of the
partnership or agency, may be given in evidence
against such party after the partnership or
agency is shown by evidence other than such
act or declaration. The same rule applies to the
act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor,
or other person jointly interested with the party.
• The declaration or act of the partner or agent
must have been made or done within the scope
of his authority;
• The declaration or act must have been done
during the existence of the partnership or
agency;
• The existence of partnership or agency is
proven by evidence other than the declaration
or act of the partner or agent.
Example 1
• A, B, and C are partners. A, the managing
partner sold the land owned by the partnership
to D, claiming that that B, and C consented to
the sale.
• Will the act of A bind, B and C.
• Yes. Provided that the existence of the
partnership is show by evidence other than
such declaration or act.
Example 2
• A, B, and C are partners. Later, they dissolved
their partnership. While the BIR was
investigating the dissolved partnership for tax
liabilities, A admitted that they falsified receipts
to evade tax liabilities.
• Is the statement of A admissible against B, and
C?
• No. Because it was done outside the existence
of the partnership.
• SECTION 30. Admission by
conspirator. — The act or declaration
of a conspirator relating to the
conspiracy and during its existence, may
be given in evidence against the co-
conspirator after the conspiracy is shown
by evidence other than such act or
declaration.
Rationale
• A conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it (Art. 8, RPC).
One the conspiracy is proven, the act of
one is the act of all. Thus, the statement
therefore of one may be admitted against
the other co-conspirators as an exception
to the rule of res inter alios acta.
Elements for the applicability of the
exception:
The declaration or act be made or done

during the existence of the conspiracy;
The declaration or act must relate to

the conspiracy;
The conspiracy must be shown by

evidence other than such declaration
Example 1
• A was arrested as a direct participant in the
crime. During a television interview, he
admitted his participation in the robbery. He
also implicated B and C as his other
companions in planning and executing the
robbery.
• Is his statement admissible against B and
C?
• No, because the statement was done outside the
existence of conspiracy.
Example 2
• A, who was staying the a room adjacent to the
room of B, C and D, overheard B, instructing C
and D how to assassinate E. A peaked at the
whole and saw A. But he was not able to see C
and D. Later E was killed.
• Is the statement of A admissible against C
and D?
• Yes. Provided that conspiracy must be shown
by evidence other than such declaration or act.
Example 3
• A, B and C was prosecuted for conspiring to kill D. The
evidence for the prosecution is the extra-judicial
confession of A and B executed in accordance with and
the constitution. In the state extra-judicial confession, A
and B implicated C as the mastermind.
• Is the extra-judicial statement of A and B admissible
against C?
• No. the confession were made after the conspiracy had
ended and after the consummation of the crime. Hence,
it cannot be said that the execution of the affidavits were
acts or declaration made during the existence of
conspiracy (People vs. Quidato, Jr., 297 SCRA 1).
• SECTION 31. Admission by privies.
— Where one derives title to property
from another, the act, declaration, or
omission of the latter, while holding the
title, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former.
Who are privies?
“Privies” are persons

who are partakers or
have an interest in any
action or thing, or any
relation to another
(Black Law Dictionary)
Requisites for the exception to
apply:
• There must be an act, declaration or
omission by a predecessor-in-interest;
• The act, declaration, or omission of the
predecessor-in-interest must have occurred
while he was holding the title to the property
• The act, declaration or omission must be in
relation to the property (Sec. 31, Rule 130)
Example
• Z inherited a house and lot from his
father X. While X was alive he
mortgaged this land to B. He openly told
to everyone that the land was mortgage
to B.
• Is the declaration X admissible
against Z?
• Yes. The requisites are complied with.
Also: Section 34, Rule 130:
SECOND BRANCH
Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence that one

did or did not do a certain thing at one time is
not admissible to prove that he did or did not
do the same or a similar thing at another time;
but it may be received to prove a specific
intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system,
scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
Evidence of Similar Conduct
• The general rule is that the law will not
consider evidence that a person has done a
certain act at a particular time as probative of a
contention that he has done a similar act at
another time. This is the rule of res inter alios
acta found in Section 34, Rule 130 of the Rules.
A similar conduct which does not even
sufficiently establish a plan or scheme is not
admissible (Enriquez vs. People, 331 SCRA
538).
When is similar acts or previous act
admissible?
It may •
•
Specific intent
Knowledge,
be •
•
Identity
Plan
received •
•
System
Scheme
to • Habit
prove: •
•
Custom
Usage, and the like.
Hearsay Rule
• SECTION 36.Testimony generally

confined to personal knowledge; hearsay
excluded. — A witness can testify only to
those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his
own perception, except as otherwise provided
in these rules.
Elements of hearsay
There must be an out of court
statement which was not made by
the declarant in the hearing or trial
The statement is offered by the

witness in court to prove the truth
of the matters asserted by the
statement
Example 1
• Affidavit offered as evidence without
presenting the affiant is hearsay (Republic vs.
Marcos-Manotoc, 665 SCRA 367; Atienza vs.
People February 12, 2014)
Example 2
• Newspaper articles amount to “hearsay
evidence twice removed and are therefore not
only inadmissible but without any probative
value at all whether objected to or not, unless
offered for a purpose other than proving the
truth of the matter asserted. In this case, the
news article is admissible only as evidence that
such publication does exist with the tenor of
the news therein stated (Feria vs. CA, 325
SCRA 525)
Please take note:
The purpose for

which the
evidence is
offered is offered
is vital to
determine
whether the
evidence is
hearsay or not.
Example 1
• Q. How long have you known the testator?
• A. For 20 years by the time he died.
• Q. How did you come to know him?
• A. I was his nurse for 20 years
• Q. On March 16, 2015, what did you hear the testator say, if
any?
• Objection, your honor, hearsay!
• A. In the morning of March 16, 2015, the testator said he is
Piolo Pascual. On April 5, 2015, the testator said, he is Enrique
Gil. On May 15, 2015, he said is Judge Gito.
• The out-of-court statement is offered to prove the state of
mind of the testator.
Example 2
• Q. Sir, what were you doing on such and such a date?
• A. I was on routine patrol
• Q. What happened on such and such a date?
• A. I saw people milling around something in the corner of Rector
Street.
• Q. What did you do if any?
• A. I got out of my patrol car to see what was happening.
• Q. What did you see, if any?
• A. I saw a man lying face downward on the side of the street with
blood over his neck
• Q. What happened next?
• A. A man whispered to me: “this happened barely two minutes ago
and that guy sitting there pretending to be an on looker is the culprit”
• This is offered to prove the effect of the statement on the police
officer which prompted the latter to arrest the accused
Independent Relevant Statement
• The law, provides for specific exceptions to the hearsay
rule. One is the doctrine of independently relevant
statements, where only the fact that such statements were
made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is
immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply; hence, the
statements are admissible as evidence.
• Evidence as to the making of such statement is not
secondary but primary, for the statement itself may
constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to
the existence of such a fact. The witness who testifies
thereto is competent because he heard the same, as this is a
matter of fact derived from his own perception, and the
purpose is to prove either that the statement was made or
the tenor thereof.
Independent Relevant Statement
The relevance of independent relevant

statement is not dependent on the truth
or falsity thereof, but on the fact that they
were said.
Example
• A testified that he actually saw the killing of C by B because he
claimed he was there. D heard him testify.
• The defense offered D as witness.
• Q. Were you here when A testified?
• A. Yes, sir
• Q. What can you say about his testimony?
• A. That was not what he told me.
• Q. What did he tell you?
• Objection your honor, hearsay.
• What is being asked here is the statement that was told by
A to D. Independent relevant statement.
Exception to Hearsay
• Dying declarations (Sec. 37, Rule 130)
• Declaration against interest (Sec. 38, Rule 130)
• Act or declaration about pedigree (Sec. 39, Rule 130)
• Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree (Sec. 40, Rule
130)
• Common reputation (Sec. 41, Rule 130)
• Part of res gestae (Sec. 42, Rule 130)
• Entries in the course of buisiness (Sec. 43, Rule 130)
• Entries in the official records (Sec. 44, Rule 130)
• Commercial Lists and the like (Sec. 45, Rule 130)
• Learned treatise (Sec. 46, Rule 130)
• Testimony or deposition at the former proceeding (Sec. 47,
Rule 130)
• SECTION 37. Dying declaration. —
The declaration of a dying person, made
under the consciousness of an
impending death, may be received in any
case wherein his death is the subject of
inquiry, as evidence of the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such
death.
Dying Declaration
• At the brink of death, all thoughts on

concocting lies disappear (People vs.
Cabtalan, 666 SCRA 174)
Elements
• The declaration concerns the cause and the
surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s
impending death.
• It is made when the death appears to be imminent
and the declarant is under a consciousness of an
impending death.
• The declarant would have competent to testify had
he or she survived.
• The dying declaration is offered in case in which the
subject of inquiry involves the declarant death.
(People vs. Gatarin, April 7, 2014)
Is dying declaration confined to
criminal cases only?
• Sec. 31 of the former rule.
• The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in a
criminal case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry,
as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of
such death.
• The declaration of a dying person, made under the
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in
any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as
evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of
such death.
Is dying declaration admissible to
prove the innocence of the accused?
YES
U.S. vs.
Antipolo, 37
SCRA 726
U.S. vs.
Clemente,
22 Phil. 277
People vs.
Martinez, 42
Phil. 85
• SECTION 42. Part of the res
gestae. — Statements made by a person
while a startling occurrence is taking place or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto
with respect to the circumstances thereof,
may be given in evidence as part of the res
gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
equivocal act material to the issue, and giving
it a legal significance, may be received as part
of the res gestae.
Kinds of Res Gestae
Spontaneous
statements
Verbal acts
Elements of Res Gestae
(Spontaneous statement)
• There is a startling occurrence.
• A statement was made while the event is taking

place, or immediately prior thereto.
• The statement was made before the declarant

had time to contrive or devise falsehood.
• The statement relates to the circumstances of

the startling event or occurrence.
Example 1
• The requisites were meet in one case where the
victim went to her aunt’s house immediately after
escaping from the crime scene and spontaneously,
unhesitatingly and immediately declared to her that
the accused had sexually abused her. Such manner of
denunciation of him as rapist was confirmed by the
aunt’s testimony about the victim’s panic-stricken
demeanor and her use of words sufficiently
indicating her being raped (People vs. Lupac,
September 19, 2012)
Example 2
• When the deceased gave the identity of his
assailant to another, he was referring to a startling
occurrence, i.e., his stabbing by the accused. The
victim was then on board the taxicab that would
bring him to the hospital and, had no time to
contrive his identification of the accused as the
assailant. His utterance about the accused having
stabbed his was made in spontaneity and only in
reaction to a startling occurrence (People vs.
Salafranca, 666 SCRA 501).
Manner of analyzing res gestae
Analyze whether there is a starling

occurrence.
When is the utterance made in relation of

startling occurrence. There should be an
element of immediacy
What is the tenor of the statement uttered? It

should be related to the circumstances of the
event.
Verbal acts as res gestae
Requistes: The principal act to be
categorized must be equivocal
The equivocal act must be
material to the issue
The statement must accompany
the equivocal act
The statement gives a legal
significance to equivocal act
• SECTION 43. Entries in the course of
business. — Entries made at, or near the
time of the transactions to which they refer,
by a person deceased, or unable to testify,
who was in a position to know the facts
therein stated, may be received as prima
facie evidence, if such person made the
entries in his professional capacity or in the
performance of duty and in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty.
“Requisites”
• The person who made the entry must be dead
or unable to testify
• The entries were made at or near the time of
the transaction to which they refer
• The entrant was in a position to know the facts
stated in the entries
• The entries were made in his professional
capacity or in the performance of a duty.
Example
• In a collection suit filed by A against B where the loan is
not evidence by a written document.
• Q. Mr. witness, did you testify that you saw the plaintiff give
money to the defendant?
• A. I did, sir.
• Q. What, if any, did anybody say at the time the money was
handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant?
• A. As the plaintiff handed the money, he said to the defendant
“This is the P10,000 you told me you were borrowing from me.”
• Q. What did the defendant say, if any?
• A. The defendant said, “Thank you. I will pay you after a year.
• SECTION 38. Declaration against
interest. — The declaration made by a
person deceased, or unable to testify, against
the interest of the declarant, if the fact
asserted in the declaration was at the time it
was made so far contrary to declarant's own
interest, that a reasonable man in his
position would not have made the
declaration unless he believed it to be true,
may be received in evidence against himself
or his successors in interest and against third
persons.
Example
• A statement made by the debtor before he
died that he owes the creditor a sum of
money, or an oral acknowledgement by the
principal that he received the money
previously entrusted to his agent, are clear
declarations against the interest of the
person making the statement.
• SECTION 39. Act or declaration about
pedigree. — The act or declaration of a person
deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the
pedigree of another person related to him by birth or
marriage, may be received in evidence where it
occurred before the controversy, and the relationship
between the two persons is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration. The word "pedigree"
includes relationship, family genealogy, birth,
marriage, death, the dates when and the places where
these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives.
It embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree.
“Requisites”
• The declarant is dead or unable to testify;
• The declarant is related by birth or marriage to
the person whose pedigree is in issue;
• The declaration was made before the
controversy;
• The relationship between the two persons is
shown by evidence other than such declaration.
Example
• The declaration of A who is dead already, prior
to his death and prior to any controversy, that B
is his illegitimate son, is a declaration about
pedigree. Similarly, a statement from a mother
while living, that her daughters, C and D, were
sired by the same father is admissible.
• SECTION 40. Family reputation or
tradition regarding pedigree. — The
reputation or tradition existing in a family
previous to the controversy, in respect to the
pedigree of any one of its members, may be
received in evidence if the witness testifying
thereon be also a member of the family,
either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in
family bibles or other family books or charts,
engravings on rings, family portraits and the
like, may be received as evidence of
pedigree.
• SECTION 41. Common reputation. —
Common reputation existing previous to the
controversy, respecting facts of public or
general interest more than thirty years old,
or respecting marriage or moral character,
may be given in evidence. Monuments and
inscriptions in public places may be received
as evidence of common reputation.
• SECTION 43. Entries in the course of
business. — Entries made at, or near the
time of transactions to which they refer, by a
person deceased, or unable to testify, who
was in position to know the facts therein
state, may be received as prima facie
evidence, if such person made the entries in
his professional capacity or in the
performance of duty and in the ordinary or
regular course of business or duty.
Take NOTE:
The exception is
commonly encountered
in breach of contract
suits and suits for
collection of sum of
money
Requisites
That the person who made the entry must be dead or unable to
testify
The entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to

which they refer
The entrant was in a position to know the facts state in the entries
The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the

performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral, or religious
The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business

or duty
(Patula vs. People, 669 SCRA 135)

• SECTION 44. Entries in official
records. — Entries in official records
made in the performance of his duty by
a public officer of the Philippines, or by
a person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law, are prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated.
Requisites
• The entry was made by a public officer or by
another person specifically enjoined by law to
do so.
• It was made by the public officer, or by such
other person in the performance of a duty
specifically enjoined by law
• The public officer had sufficient knowledge of
the facts he stated which must have been
acquired by the public officer person personally
or through official information
• SECTION 45. Commercial lists and
the like. — Evidence of statements of
matters of interest to persons engaged in an
occupation contained in a list, register,
periodical, or other published compilation is
admissible as tending to prove the truth of
any relevant matter so stated if that
compilation is published for use by persons
engaged in that occupation and is generally
used and relied upon by them therein.
• SECTION 46. Learned treatises. — A
published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on
a subject of history, law, science or art is
admissible as tending to prove the truth of a
matter stated therein if the court takes
judicial notice, or a witness expert in the
subject testifies, that the writer of the
statement in the treatise, periodical or
pamphlet is recognized in his profession or
calling as expert in the subject.
• SECTION 47. Testimony or
deposition at a former proceeding. —
The testimony or deposition of a witness
deceased or unable to testify, given in a
former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties
and subject matter, may be given in evidence
against the adverse party who had the
opportunity to cross-examine him.
Requisites
• The witness is dead or unable to testify
• His testimony or deposition was given in a former case
or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the
same parties or those representing the same parties
• The former case involved the same subject as that in the
present case, although on different cause of action
• The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is
the same issue involved in the present case
• The adverse party had the opportunity to cross-examine
the witness in the former case
• (Manliclic vs. Calaunan, 512 SCRA 642)
Opinion Rule
• SECTION 48. General rule. — The
opinion of a witness is not admissible,
except as indicated in the following
sections.
• This rule applies to an ordinary witness.
If you are not expert, you have no right
to give an opinion. Only expert does.
Opinion Rule
• SECTION 49. Opinion of an expert.
— The opinion of a witness requiring a
special knowledge, skill, experience or
training which he is shown to possesses,
may be received in evidence.
But:
• The Court is not bound by an opinion of an
expert such as for example a handwriting expert.
Expert opinion evidence is to be considered or
weighed by the court, like any other testimony, in the
light of its own general knowledge and experience
upon the subject of inquiry. The probative force of
testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement
of his theory or opinion, but rather in the aid that he
can render to the courts in showing the facts which
serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon
which the logic of his conclusions is founded (Dizon
vs. Tuazon, 557 SCRA 487)
Opinion Rule
• SECTION 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses.
— The opinion of a witness for which proper basis
is given, may be received in evidence regarding —
• (a) the identity of a person about whom he has
adequate knowledge;
• (b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient
familiarity; and
• (c) The mental sanity of a person with whom he is
sufficiently acquainted.
• The witness may also testify on his impressions of
the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a
person.
Character Evidence
• SECTION 51. Character evidence not generally
admissible; exceptions: —
• (a) In Criminal Cases:
• (1) The accused may prove his good moral character
which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged.
• (2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his
bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged.
• (3) The good or bad moral character of the offended
party may be proved if it tends to establish in any
reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the
offense charged.
Character Evidence
• (b) In Civil Cases:
• Evidence of the moral character of a party in a
civil case is admissible only when pertinent to
the issue of character involved in the case.
• (c) In the case provided for in Rule 132,
Section 14. – “Evidence of good character of
witness. — Evidence of the good character of
a witness is not admissible until such character
has been impeached.”
Offer of Evidence and Trial Objections
• RULE:
• SECTION 34. Offer of evidence.
— The court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified.
Please take note:
“Marking of
document is not an
offer”
When formal offer of evidence
is not required
• In summary proceedings
• Documents judicially admitted or taken judicial notice of
• Documents, affidavits and depositions used in a summary
judgment
• Documents or affidavits and depositions used in deciding
quasi-judicial or administrative (Bantolino vs. Coca-Cola,
403 SCRA 699)
• Lost objects, previously marked, identified, described in the
record and testified to by the witnesses who hade been
subjects of cross-examination in respect to said objects
(Tabuena vs. CA, 196 SCRA 650)
When is the testimony of the
witness offered?
Section 35. When to make

offer. - As regards the
testimony of a witness, the
offer must be made at the
time the witness is called to
testify.
When is documentary or object
evidence offered?
Section 35. When to make offer. – x x

x Documentary and object
evidence shall be offered after the
presentation of a party's
testimonial evidence. Such offer
shall be done orally unless allowed
by the court to be done in writing..
When is objection to evidence
orally offered made?
• Objection to evidence offered orally must
be made immediately after the offer is
made.
• Objection to a question propounded in the
course of the oral examination of a witness
shall be made as soon as the grounds
therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
May evidence not formally
offered be considered?
• YES
• If the evidence was duly identified by the
testimony duly recorded
• The same must have been incorporated in the
records of the case
• (People vs. Mate, 103 SCRA 484; Medina vs.
People, June 17, 2015)
When is objection to evidence
offered in writing made?
• An offer of evidence in writing shall be
objected to within three (3) days after
notice of the offer unless a different period
is allowed by the court.
• In any case, the grounds for the objections
must be specified.
Continuing Objection
• Section 37, Rule 132 - When repetition of
objection unnecessary. - When it becomes
reasonably apparent in the course of the
examination of a witness that the questions being
propounded are of the same class as those to
which objection has been made, whether such
objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be
necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient
for the adverse party to record his continuing
objection to such class of questions.
When should documentary or
object evidence?
“At the time

it is offered
after the
presentation
of
testimonial
evidence.”
When shall the Court rule?
• Section 38. Ruling - The ruling of the court must be
given immediately after the objection is made, unless the
court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on
the question presented; but the ruling shall always be
made during the trial and at such time as will give the
party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the
situation presented by the ruling.
• The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need
not be stated. However, if the objection is based on two
or more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one
or some of them must specify the ground or grounds
relied upon.
Striking out of an answer
• Section 40, Rule 132. Striking out answer. —
Should a witness answer the question before the
adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its
objection to the same, and such objection is found
to be meritorious, the court shall sustain the
objection and order the answer given to be stricken
off the record.
• On proper motion, the court may also order the
striking out of answers which are incompetent,
irrelevant, or otherwise improper.
Grounds for striking out of an
answer
• When the answer is premature
• When the answer of the witness is irrelevant,
incompetent or improper
• When the answer is unresponsive
• When the witness becomes unavailable for
cross-examination
• When the testimony is allowed conditionally
but the condition was not fulfilled
Tender of Excluded Evidence
Section 40, Rule 132. Tender of
excluded evidence. — If
documents or things offered in
evidence are excluded by the
court, the offeror may have the
same attached to or made part of
the record. If the evidence
excluded is oral, the offeror may
state for the record the name and
other personal circumstances of
the witness and the substance of
the proposed testimony.

BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY LECTURE ON EVIDENCE

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY LECTURE ON EVIDENCE

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY

2017 BAR EXAMINATION

JUDGE GENER M. GITO, LL.M., D.C.L.

• Evidence is the means,

When parties stipulated on certain facts.

When a fact is subject to judicial notice.

When the fact is judicially admitted

When the law presumes the truth of a fact.

Proof is the product of

Evidence is the medium of

• Evidence is admissible when it is

• How do you determine the connection of evidence

• It is not matter of law, rather it is a matter of logic.

• Evidence must have such a relation

• It is one that is not excluded by the law

• If the test of relevancy is logic and

• Example: Declaration of dying person Dying

• Conditional admissibility – Sometimes the

• It proves a fact without • It is that evidence which

The facts from which the

The combination of all

• It refers to evidence of • It is one which is

• Evidence is said to be • It is negative when the

Section 1, Rule 131

Burden of Proof – Burden

• The burden of proof that a debt was

• It is an assumption of fact resulting from

• A party in whose favor the legal

Conclusive – when the presumption

Disputable – if it may be contradicted by

• The effect of a presumption upon a

• Sec. 3(m), Rule 131

• In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one

Proof beyond reasonable doubt

Matters which are within the

Facts which are judicially

Facts which are presumed by law

• A court may take judicial notice of matters

It must be made by a party to a

It must be made in the course of

It does not require a particular

• Judicial admission are legally binding on the

• Section 1, Rule 130 - Objects as

The evidence must be competent

The evidence must be authenticated by a

The object evidence must be formally

It is not the real

Section 2, Rule 130

• (Section 3, Rule 130)

If the matter inquired into is the

• When the original is a public record in the

• Section 3, Rule 130

• When the original is in the custody or under the

• Section 3, Rule 130

Offeror must show the cause of its

Existence Execution Loss Contents

The original exists

Document is under the custody or control of the

Proponent has given the other party reasonable

The other party failed to produce the original

Original consists of numerous

They cannot be examined in court