EVIDENCE

DEFINITION:

- an outward sign : INDICATION

- something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
- specifically : something legally submitted to a
tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

Evidence is anything that you see, experience,

read, or are told that causes you to believe that
something is true or has really happened.

Evidence is the information which is used in a

court of law to try to prove something. Evidence
is obtained from documents, objects, or
witnesses.
- ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to
base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

- a mark or sign that makes evident; indication

- matter produced before a court of law in an

attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue,
such as the statements of witnesses, documents,
material objects, etc
PROOF VS EVIDENCE
Concept of Evidence

(1) Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the

Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact
(Sec. 1, Rule 128).
Relevant evidence – evidence which has a relation
to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence; evidence which tends
in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

Material evidence – evidence which is directed to

prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of
substantive law and pleadings; evidence of such
quality of substantial importance to the particular
issue, apart from its relevance.

The terms “relevant” and “material” are practically

the same. They are used interchangeably by the
SC.
Competent evidence – evidence which is not
excluded by the law or by the Rules of Court

Direct evidence – evidence which proves a fact in

dispute without the aid of any inference or
presumption

Circumstantial evidence – proof of facts from

which, taken collectively, the existence of the
particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a
necessary or probable consequence
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves
a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue
may be established by inference. It consists of proof
of collateral facts and circumstances from which the
existence of the main fact may be inferred according
to reason and common experience. (People v.
Estonilo, GR No. 201565, 10/13/2014).
―Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more
than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case, it is beyond doubt that all the circumstances taken together
point to the singular conclusion that appellant Solano, to the exclusion of
all others, committed the crime. As found by the trial court and affirmed by
the appellate court, the victim was last seen in the presence of the
appellant Solano. Edwin Jr. saw appellant Solano chasing the victim.
Nestor also saw appellant Solano dragging the motionless body of ―AAA.

The body of the victim was eventually found buried in the mud near the
place where she was last seen with Solano. Solano admitted holding a
grudge against the family of ―AAA‖ because he believes that a relative of
―AAA‖ had raped his sister. The autopsy report showed that ―AAA‖ was
raped and strangled. Likewise, Solano could not ascribe any ill–motive on
the part of prosecution witnesses Edwin Jr., Edwin Sr. and Nestor whom
he even considered as friends. (People v. Solano, Jr., GR No. 199871,
06/02/2014).
Although based on the evidence adduced by both
parties, no direct evidence points to Almojuela as the
one who stabbed Quejong. A finding of guilt is still
possible despite the absence of direct evidence.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence may
result if sufficient circumstances, proven and taken
together, create an unbroken chain leading to the
reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the
exclusion of all others, was the author of the crime.
(Almojuela v. People, GR No. 183202, 06/02/2014).
Under the Doctrine of Independently Relevant Statement, if the purpose of
placing the statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that
the statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless 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. Thus, the statement of an NBI Agent that a witness confided
to him that the latter heard the accused in a murder case tell the other
suspect that “ayoko nang abutin pa ng bukas yang si [victim].”, while they
were armed with firearms and boarding a car, is independently relevant and
proves what the witness heard, and not the truthfulness or falsity of the
statement.

Conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld provided that the

circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair
and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all
others, as the guilty person. Thus, the court may convict the accused in a
murder case on the basis of the 1.) independently relevant statement of the
NBI Agent that a witness heard the accused utter statements as to the killing
of the victim, 2.) the getaway vehicle was properly identified by the previous
owner, 3.) the statement of the medico-legal officer that high-powered
firearms were used in the killing of the victim, and 4.) the escape from
detention of the accused. (Espineli v. People, GR No. 179535, 06/09/2014).
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if (i) there is
more than one circumstance; (ii) the facts from which the inference is
derived are proven; and (iii) the combination of all circumstances is
such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. While no
prosecution witness has actually seen the commission of the crime, it
has been settled that direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix
from which a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The
lack of direct evidence does not ipso facto bar the finding of guilt
against the appellant. As long as the prosecution establishes accused‘s
participation in the crime through credible and sufficient circumstantial
evidence that leads to the inescapable conclusion that he committed
the imputed crime, the latter should be convicted. (People v. Consorte,
GR No. 194068, 07092014).
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial
evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial
evidence presented must constitute an unbroken
chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion
of the others, as the guilty person. The circumstantial
evidence must exclude the possibility that some other
person has committed the crime. Unfortunately, in the
case at bar, the Supreme Court finds that the
prosecution failed to present sufficient circumstantial
evidence to convict the Zabala of the offense
charged. We find that the pieces of evidence
presented before the trial court fail to provide a
sufficient combination of circumstances, as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
(Zabala v. People, GR No. 210760, 01/26/2015).
Expert evidence – testimony of a witness regarding a
question of science, art or trade, when he is skilled
therein.

Prima facie evidence – evidence which suffices for the

proof of a particular fact until contradicted and
overcome by other evidence.

Conclusive evidence – evidence which is

incontrovertible and which the law does not allow to be
contradicted.
Cumulative evidence – evidence of the same kind and
character as that already given and tends to prove the
same proposition

Corroborative evidence – evidence of a different kind

and character tending to prove the same point
Best evidence – evidence which affords the greatest
certainty of the fact in question

Secondary evidence – evidence which is necessarily

inferior to primary/best evidence and shows on its fact
that better evidence exists
Best evidence – evidence which affords the greatest
certainty of the fact in question

Secondary evidence – evidence which is necessarily

inferior to primary/best evidence and shows on its fact
that better evidence exists
Factum probans – the evidentiary fact by which the
factum probandum is to be established; material
evidencing the proposition, existent, and offered for
the consideration of the tribunal

Factum probandum – the ultimate fact sought to be

established; proposition to be established,
hypothetical, and that which one party affirms and the
other denies
Collateral facts – matters other than facts in issue and
which are offered as a basis merely for inference as to
the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue

Real evidence – evidence furnished by the things

themselves, or view or inspection as distinguished
from a description by them of a witness; that which is
addressed directly to the senses of the court without
the intervention of a witness

Rebuttal evidence – evidence which is given to

explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in
evidence by the adverse party
Positive evidence – when a witness affirms that a fact
did or did not occur

Negative evidence – when a witness states that he did

not see or know the occurrence of a fact
Testimony is positive when the witness affirms that a
fact did or did not exist; and it is negative when he
says that he did not see or know of the factual
occurrence (Tanala vs. NLRC, 252 SCRA 314).

Positive evidence is entitled to greater weight, the

reason being that he who denies a certain fact may
not remember exactly the circumstances on which he
bases his denial (People vs. Mendoza, 236 SCRA
666).
Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.

Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed,

except when it tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in
issue.
Concept of Evidence: How to prove facts

- Generally, the mode or manner of proving factual

allegations in a complaint, information or petition is through
witnesses who are placed in the witness stand to testify on
what they personally know of the case and/or to identify
relevant documents. They are presented voluntarily or
through the coercive process of subpoena duces tecum.
Evidence is also secured by resorting to modes of
discoveries, such as:

(a) Taking of depositions of any person, oral or written (Rule

23);
(b) Serving of interrogatories to parties (Rule 25);
(c) Serving of requests for admission by the adverse party
(Rule 25);
(d) Production and inspection of documents (Rule 27); and
(e) Examination of physical and mental conditions of persons
(Rule 28).
Concept of Evidence: How to prove facts

- A matter may also be proved by means of affidavit,

such as in motions based on facts not appearing on
record, in cased covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure, and those filed in administrative or quasi-
judicial bodies.
Concept of Evidence: How to prove facts

- The basis of evidence is the adaptation to the

successful development of the truth; and a rule of
evidence at one time though necessary to the
ascertainment of truth should yield to the experience
of a succeeding generation whenever that
experience has clearly demonstrated the fallacy or
unwisdom of the old rule (Funk vs. US, 391).
Scope of the Rules of Evidence:

As used in judicial proceedings, the rules of evidence

shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and
hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or the
Rules of Court (Sec. 2, Rule 128).
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE:

The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the

quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered.
Important rules that govern admissibility concern hearsay,
authentication, relevance, privilege, witnesses, opinions, expert
testimony, identification and rules of physical evidence.

HIERARCHY – QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE:

- Proof beyond reasonable doubt

- Clear and convincing proof
- Preponderance of Evidence
- Substantial evidence

*Conclusive- overwhelming or incontrovertible

*Prima Facie- that which suffices until rebutted

*Probable Cause- as that required for filing of an Information in Court

or for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
In every criminal case, the accused is entitled to 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. Only
moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.

“All administrative determinations require only substantial proof

and not clear and convincing evidence as erroneously contended
by pubic respondents.”

G.R. No. 102358 November 19, 1992

in People v. Ganguso:

An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which

the Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt
standard is demanded by the due process clause of the
Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except
upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to
constitute the crime with which he is charged. The burden of
proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden
the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he
would be entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
does not, of course, mean such degree of proof as, excluding the
possibility of error, produce absolute certainty. Moral certainty
only is required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The conscience must be
satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged.
(CITED IN G.R. No. 205745)
Clear and convincing proof is ". . . more than mere
preponderance, but not to extent of such certainty as
is required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal
cases . . ." while substantial evidence ". . . consists of
more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be
somewhat less than a preponderance . . . ."
Consequently, in the hierarchy of evidentiary values,
We find proof beyond reasonable doubt at the
highest level, followed by clear and convincing
evidence, preponderance of evidence, and
substantial evidence, in that order.

G.R. No. 102358 November 19, 1992


Fraud is never presumed but must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence, mere
preponderance of evidence not even being
adequate. Contentions must be proved by
competent evidence and reliance must be had
on the strength of the party’s evidence and not
upon the weakness of the opponent’s defense.
The plaintiff clearly failed to discharge such
burden.
G.R. No. 102358 November 19, 1992

The person claiming moral damages must prove
the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing
evidence for the law always presumes good faith.
It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless
nights, mental anguish, serious anxiety as the
result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably
such action must be shown to have been willfully
done in bad faith or will ill motive. Mere allegations
of besmirched reputation, embarrassment and
sleepless nights are insufficient to warrant an
award for moral damages. It must be shown that
the proximate cause thereof was the unlawful act
or omission of the [private respondent] petitioners.

G.R. No. 171428, November 11, 2013
It is settled that in civil cases, the party having the
burden of proof must produce a preponderance of
evidence thereon, with plaintiff having to rely on the
strength of his own evidence and not upon the
weakness of the defendant's. Preponderance of
evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the
aggregate evidence on either side and is usually
considered to be synonymous with the term
'greater weight of evidence' or 'greater weight of
credible evidence. Succinctly put, it only requires
that evidence be greater or more convincing than the
opposing evidence.

G.R. No. 198799

Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and
value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is
usually considered to be synonymous with the term
"greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of
the credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is
a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability
of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to
the court as it is worthier of belief than that which is
offered in opposition thereto.

G.R. No. 190846

Well-established is the principle that findings of fact
of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, are accorded
with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial
evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as such
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion.

G.R. No. 131523 August 20, 1998

The evidence required in administrative cases is concededly only
substantial; that is, the requirement of substantial evidence is
satisfied although the evidence is not overwhelming, for as long
as there is reasonable ground to believe that the person charged
is guilty of the act complained of.

February 23, 2016

IPI No. 15-35-SB-J

Any lawyer worth his salt knows that quanta of proof and
adjective rules vary depending on whether the cases to
which they are meant to apply are criminal, civil or
administrative in character. In criminal actions, proof beyond
reasonable doubt is required for conviction;in civil actions
and proceedings, preponderance of evidence, as support for
a judgment; and in administrative cases, substantial
evidence, as basis for adjudication. In criminal and civil
actions, application of the Rules of Court is called for, with
more or less strictness. In administrative proceedings,
however, the technical rules of pleadingand procedure, and
of evidence, are not strictly adhered to; they generally apply
only suppletorily; indeed, in agrarian disputes application of
the Rules of Court is actually prohibited.

G.R. Nos. 212140-4, January 21, 2015

RULE 129 – WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

Judicial notice, when mandatory. – A court shall take

judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of
the existence and territorial extent of states, their
political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and
maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
political constitution and history of the Philippines,
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.
Judicial notice, when discretionary. – A court may
take judicial notice of matters which are of public
knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions.
SECTION 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. —
During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request
of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice
of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper
court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take
judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the
case.(n)

SECTION 4. Judicial admissions. — 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. (2a)
A. Each Party Must Prove His Own Allegation. Allegations in
pleadings do not prove themselves. No party wins by
having the most allegations, or that the allegation of
causes of actions or defenses are crafted in the strongest
and most persuasive language.

All allegations remain but as allegations or propositions.

Hence every party to a case, who desires that a favorable
judgment be rendered in his favor, must present evidence
to support his claim, cause of action or defense be it in the
form of object evidence, documents, or testimonies of
witnesses.

Likewise, the court limits itself to only such evidence as were

properly presented and admitted during the trial and does
not consider matters or facts outside the court.
B. A Party Can Not Prove What He Did Not Allege
(Non Alegata Non Proba) A party however is not
authorized to introduce evidence on matters which
he never alleged. Hence plaintiff will not be
permitted to prove a cause of action which is not
stated in his complaint, and the defendant will not
be permitted to prove a defense which he never
raised in his Answer. In criminal cases, the
Prosecution is not permitted to prove a crime not
described in the Information or to prove any
aggravating circumstance not alleged in the
Information.
C. But a party may be relieved from presenting
evidence on certain matters, such as on the
following:

1. Matters or facts subject of judicial notice

2. Matters or facts subject of judicial admission
3. Matters or facts which are legally presumed
4. Matters or facts stipulated upon
5. Matters or facts which are exclusively within the
knowledge of the opposing party
6. Matters or facts which are irrelevant
7. Matters or facts in the nature of negative
allegations subject to certain exceptions
III. General Classification of Matters Subject of Notice

A. Adjudicative Matters- those facts related to the case under

consideration and which may affect the outcome thereof.

1. In a case where the accused set up denial and alibi being then
in Manila, court may take judicial notice that normal travel time by
bus from Manila to Baguio City is between 6 to 7 hours

2. Where the accused set up accidental shooting, the court may

take notice that a revolver does not fire accidentally because
pressure must be applied to the trigger

3. Where a witness claimed to have seen a person by the light of

day at around 6:00 PM on December some 10 meters away,
courts may take notice of the shortened days in December and
that by 6:30 there is no more day light.
B. Legislative Matters- those facts which relate either
to: (i) the existence of a law or legal principle (ii) the
reason, purpose or philosophy behind the law or of a
legal principle as formulated by the legislature or the
court (iii) the law or principle itself.
Judicial Notice, Legislative Matters:

The following are examples:

1. The need to protect Filipino OFWs as a primary reason behind the Migrant
Workers Act or the increase in the incidence of drug related crimes as reason for
the increase in the penalty for violation of the drug law

2. That the passage of the Anti Terrorism Law and the Anti-Money Laundering Law
were influenced by the demands of the international community

3. Taking notice of the increase in the age of criminal liability

4. That documents presented in the Register of Deeds are recorded according to

the date and time of their presentation

5. The policy of the law as regards bail in heinous crimes or of the policy of the
state against the use of illegal means to obtain evidence

6. Gun Ban during election period

IV. Limitations. The taking of judicial notice maybe
abused and might unfairly favor a party who is
unable to prove a material point. Conversely the
non-taking notice of a fact might unduly burden a
party where proof is not readily available or
impossible to obtain and proof thereof is
unnecessary, but still the court refuses to take
notice of the fact.

A. As to what may be taken notice of: the matter must

be one covered by section 1 or is authorized under
Section 2 of Rule 129.

B. As to the procedure: there must be a prior hearing

pursuant to Section 3.
Section 1. Matters the taking notice of which is
mandatory.

INTRODUCTION: If a fact falls under any of the

matters enumerated, then the court may not
compel a party to present evidence thereon and
necessarily, it may not decide against the party for
the latter’s failure to present evidence on the
matter. The enumeration is exclusive.
I. As to Foreign States: their existence and territorial extent;
forms of government ( monarchial, presidential,
parliamentary, royalty), symbols of nationality ( flag,
national costume, anthem).
A. Limitation: However the recognition of a foreign
state or government is subject to the decision of
the political leadership

II. The Law of Nations: the body of principles, usages,

customs and unwritten precepts observed by, and which
governs, the relations between and among states.

A. Examples: (i). The Principle of Equality of States (ii)

Sovereign Immunity of visiting Heads of States and the
protocol observed for said visiting dignitary such as the
21 gun salute (iii) The Diplomatic Immunity of foreign
diplomatic representatives (iv) recognition of piracy as a
crime against humanity
III. The Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction of the
World and their Seals
IV. The Philippine as a state

A. Its constitution and political history: the political set up of the

government

1. As a Spanish colony, American colony, as a commonwealth, as a

republic; Martial law years; the political upheavals such as the
assassination of B. Aquino, EDSA I and II
2. The cabinet system in the Office of the President
3. Previous Presidents; the trial and conviction of Erap and his
subsequent pardon
4. The administrative division into regions, provinces, municipalities, cities,
barangays and into sitios or puroks
5. Manila as the capital and the capital towns of the provinces; the
location of major rivers, lakes and mountains
6. Contemporary political developments such as the ongoing communist
rebellion and muslin secessionist movement
7. Wars in which the Philippines participated
B. The official acts of the legislature, executive and judicial
departments

1. That congress is a bicameral body; the form of leadership in

each house; the process of legislation; the committee system;
laws which were passed

2. State visits of the presidents; ratification of treaties; executive

orders and decrees; declaration of state of emergencies

3. Grants of amnesty

4. Holding of peace negotiations with the rebels

5. Membership in the UN and other regional organizations as well

as the hosting of the ASEAN in Cebu

6. Decisions of appellate courts

V. The Laws of Nature: Examples:

1. laws relating to science which are so well known such as that the DNA of each
person being distinct, or blood groupings as proof of filiation; or of finger prints and
dententures being distinct and dissimilar from one person to another.

2. The law of gravity, mathematical equations, weights and measurements

3. The solar system, the planets and stars

4. The composition and decay of matter

5. The birth and period of gestation of human beings

6. The occurrence of natural phenomenon provided these are constant, immutable

and certain, otherwise these occurrences are “freaks of nature”

a). the changing of the season

b). the cycle of day and night

c). the difference in time between places on earth

d). the variation in vegetation

VI. Measures of Time: into seconds, minutes, days,
weeks months and years

VII. Geographical Division of the World such as the

number and location of the continents, and the
major oceans, the division into hemispheres;
longitudes and latitudes
Section 2. Matters the taking of which is
discretionary.

I. This section authorizes a court to take judicial

notice of certain matters in its discretion. The
matters fall into three groups: 1. Those which are of
public knowledge 2. Those which are capable of
unquestionable demonstration and 3. Matters
ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions.
II. First Group: Matters of Public Knowledge.
A. These are matters the truth or existence of which
are accepted by the public without qualification,
condition or contention.

B. Requirements:

1. Notoriety of the Facts in that the facts are well and

publicly known. The existence should not be known
only to a certain portion of the community

2. The matter must be well and authoritatively settled

and not doubtful or uncertain

3. The matter must be within the limits of the territorial

jurisdiction of the court
C. Examples:

1. The existence and location of hospitals, public

buildings, plazas and markets, schools and
universities, main thoroughfares, parks, rivers and
lakes

2. Facts of local history and contemporary

developments including political matters. For
example: the creation of the city or town, previous
and present political leaders or officials; the
increase in population; traffic congestion in main
streets. The existence and location of the PMA in
Baguio City
III. Second Group: Matters Capable of Unquestionable
Demonstration

A. These are matters which, even if not notorious, can

be immediately shown to exist or be true so as to
justify dispensing with actual proof.
B. Examples:

1. That poison kills or results to serious injury

2. That boiling water scalds

3. Striking the body with a sharp instruments results

to rupturing the skin and to bleeding

4. Shooting on the head kills

5. Hunger results to a weakened physical condition

6. Vehicles running at top speed do not immediately

stop even when the brakes are applied and will leave
skid marks on the road
IV. Third Group: Matters Ought To Be Known to Judges
because of their Judicial Functions

A. These are matters which pertain to the office of the

Judge or known to them based on their experience as
judges
B. Examples:

1. The behavior of people to being witnesses such as

their reluctance to be involved in cases thus requiring
the issuance of subpoenae to them; the varied
reaction of people to similar events

2. Procedures in the reduction of bail bonds

V. Principles Involved
A. The matter need not be personally known to the
judge in order to be taken judicial notice of, as in fact
the judge maybe personally ignorant thereof

B. Personal knowledge by the Judge of a fact is not

necessarily knowledge by the Court as to be the
basis of a judicial notice

C. As to whether a party can introduce contrary proof:

(1). If the matter is one subject of mandatory judicial
notice, contrary proof is not allowed (2). If the matter
is one which the court is allowed to take notice in its
discretion, the prohibition applies to civil cases only,
but in criminal cases, the accused may still introduce
contrary proof as part of his right to defend himself.
VI. Judicial Notice of Certain Specific Matters

A. As To Foreign Laws.

1. As a general rule, Philippine Courts cannot take

judicial notice of the existence and provisions or
contents of a foreign law, which matters must be
alleged and proven as a fact. If the existence and
provisions/contents were not properly pleaded and
proven, the Principle of Processual Presumption
applies i.e. the foreign law will be presumed to be the
same as Philippine Laws and it will be Philippine
Laws which will be applied to the case.
2. Exceptions or when Court may take judicial notice of a foreign law

a. When there is no controversy among the parties as to the

existence and provision of the foreign law

b. When the foreign law has been previously ruled upon the court as
to have acquired actual knowledge of it. For example: Knowledge
of the Texan law on succession based on the Christiansen cases;
notice of the existence of the Nevada Divorce Law

c. The foreign law has been previously applied in the Philippines e.g.
the Spanish Codigo Penal

d. The foreign law is the source of the Philippine Law e.g. the
California Law on Insurance, the Spanish Civil Code

e. When the foreign law is a treaty in which the Philippines is a

signatory it being part of the Public International Law
The question as to what are the laws of a foreign state
is one of fact, not of law. Foreign laws may not be
taken judicial notice of and have to be proved like any
other fact (In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156),
except where said laws are within the actual
knowledge of the court such as when they are well
and generally known or they have been actually ruled
upon in other cases before it and none of the parties
claim otherwise (Phil. Commercial & Industrial Bank
vs. Escolin, L-27936, 03/29/74).
To prove the foreign law, the requirements of Secs. 24
and 25, Rule 132 must be complied with, that is, by
an official publication or by a duly attested and
authenticated copy thereof. The provisions of the
foreign law may also be the subject of judicial
admission under Sec. 4, Rule 129. Absent any of the
foregoing evidence or admission, the foreign law is
presumed to the same as that in the Philippines,
under the so-called doctrine of processual
presumption (Collector of Internal Revenue vs.
Fisher, L-11622, 01/28/61).
When a foreign law is part of a published treatise,
periodical or pamphlet and the writer is recognized in
his profession or calling as expert in the subject, the
court may take judicial notice of the treatise
containing the foreign law (Sec. 46, Rule 130).

When a foreign law refers to the law of nations, said law

is subject to mandatory judicial notice under Sec. 1,
Rule 129. Under the Philippine Constitution, the
Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles
of international law as part of the law of the land (Sec.
2, Art. II). They are therefore technically in the nature
of local laws and hence, are subject to a mandatory
judicial notice.
MTCs must take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force
in the municipality in which they sit (US vs. Blanco, 37 Phil.
126). RTCs should also take judicial notice of municipal
ordinances in force in the municipalities within their
jurisdiction but only when so required by law. For instance,
the charter of City of Manila requires all courts sitting therein
to take judicial notice of all ordinances passed by the city
council (City of Manila vs. Garcia, 19 SCRA 413). Such court
must take judicial notice also of municipal ordinances on
appeal to it from the inferior court in which the latter took
judicial notice (US vs. Hernandez, 31 Phil. 542).

The Court of Appeals may take judicial notice of municipal

ordinances because nothing in the Rules prohibits it from
taking cognizance of an ordinance which is capable of
unquestionable demonstration (Gallego vs. People, 8 SCRA
813).
Doctrine of Presumed Identity approach of Processual
Presumption. It is hornbook principle that the party
invoking the applicable of a foreign law has the
burden of proving the law. In international law, the
party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a
dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign.
The foreign laws are treated as a question of fact to
be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or labor
arbiter cannot take judicial notice of foreign law. He is
presumed to know only domestic or forum law. Where
a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not
proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the
same as ours (ATCI Overseas Corporation v. Echin
[2010]).
As held in Garcia v. Recio, 418 Phil. 723-735 [2001],
divorce obtained abroad is proven bydivorce decree
itself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the
judgment itself. The decree purports to be a written
act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of
a foreign country. It is well-settled in our jurisdiction
that our courts take judicial notice of foreign laws.
Like any other facts, they must be alleged and
proved. The power of judicial notice must be
exercised with caution, and every reasonable doubt
upon the subject should be resolved in the negative
(Enriquez Vda. De Catalan v. Catalan-Lee [2012]).
It is well settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in our
jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice
of them. To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present
a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of
the Revised Rules of Court. 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. 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. While a
photocopy of the foreign statute relied upon by the court a quo to
relieve the common carrier from liability, was presented as
evidence during the trial, the same however was not accompanied
by the required attestation and certification. (Nedlloyd Lijnen BV
Rotterdam and the East Asiatic Co., Ltd. V. Glow Laks
Enterprises, Ltd., GR No. 156330, 11/19/2014).
B. Domestic Laws, Administrative Rules and Regulations

1. As to laws, rules and regulations of national applications,

their passage and effectivity and provisions are governmental
matters which must be noticed mandatorily

2. As to laws of local application:

a. For lower Courts: they may take notice of ordinances,

resolutions and executive or administrative orders enforced
within the town nor city where they sit

b. For the RTCs: they may do so only when a case has been
appealed to them and the lower court has taken notice
thereof

c. For appellate courts: on appeal and all those enforced within

any town or city in the Philippines
C. Decisions of Courts

1. Decisions of appellate courts must be taken notice of

mandatorily by trial courts

2. As to the records of cases pending or decided by

other courts: these may not be taken judicial notice of
3. As to Records of Other Cases Pending Before the Same
Court

a).. As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial

notice of the contents of records of other cases tried or
pending in the same court, even when these cases were
heard or actually pending before the same judge.

b). However, this rule admits of exceptions, (i). as when

reference to such records is sufficiently made without
objection from the opposing parties Reference is by name
and number or in some other manner by which it is
sufficiently designated or (ii) when the original record of the
former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the
archives by the court’s direction, at the request or with the
consent of the parties, and admitted as part of the records of
the case then pending (Calamba Steel Center Inc. vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. April 28, 2005)
D. Commercial Usages and Practices: those pertaining to business, occupation or
profession. Notice may be taken only of those which are well known and established.
Examples:

1. The closure of banks on Saturdays and Sundays and of the banking hours being until
3:00 P.M.

2. Practice of considering checks as sale if not presented within 6 months

3. The establishment of ATM machines to facilitate the openning of accounts and

withdrawal of money

4. The practice of requiring tickets for persons to enter theaters and movie houses or to
ride in public transports

5. The holding of graduation exercises by schools and universities every end of the
semester

6. The public auction of unredeemed articles by pawn shops

7. Courts take judicial notice that before a bank grants a loan secured by a land, it first
undertakes a careful examination of the title, as well as a physical and on-the-spot
investigation of the land offered as security. Hence it cannot claim to be a mortgagee
in good faith as against the actual possessor of the land ( Erasustada vs. C.A., 495
SCRA 319)
E. Customs, Habits and Practices of People: Notice may be
taken only of those which are generally known and
established and uniformly acted upon.

Particular customs, and those peculiar only to certain people

must be established as a fact. Examples:

1. Variations in handwriting

2. The instinct of self preservation

3. Sleeping habits of people in the barrios

4. Rituals digging and cleansing of bones of buried loved ones

among certain tribes and other tribal practices, must be
proved as a fact

5. What about the natural shyness of the Filipina woman?

F. As to religious matters: Courts may take notice of the general
tenets or beliefs of a particular group including their
organizational structures, but not as to specific practices,
tenets and dogmas. Examples:

1.Thus notice maybe taken of the belief Catholics consider

Jesus as God, whereas the INC do not but as a man, and
the Muslims regard Him merely as a prophet lesser in stature
to Mohammed.

2. That the Pope is the titular head of the Catholic Church while
the Dalai Llama is head of the Tibetan Monks; Mecca is the
Holiest City of the Muslims; the Muslim belief in Ramadan;
the belief in reincarnation among the Hindus and Buddhists
while the Christians believe in resurrection after death;
whereas Christians believe in heaven the Buddhist have their
Nirvana. Notice is proper of the Christian Bible and the
Muslim Koran as their respective Holy Books.
Section 3. When Hearing Is Necessary

I. When and How Notice is taken.

A. By the Trial Court : either Motu Proprio or upon

motion by a party .Generally this is during the trial or
presentation of evidence, but it maybe made
thereafter but before judgment and only upon a
matter which is decisive of the issue.

B. By the appellate court: before Judgment

II. Need for Hearing

A. If motu proprio, the Court must announce its

intention and give the parties the opportunity to give
their view on whether or not the matter is a proper
subject of judicial notice.

B. If on motion of a party, the opposing party must

likewise be given the opportunity to comment
thereon.
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

Sec. 4: 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 maybe
contradicted only by a showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that no such admission
was made.

I. CONCEPT- The act or declaration of a party in

voluntary acknowledging or accepting the truth or
existence of a certain fact. The admission maybe
Judicial or Extra Judicial and in either case, they may
be oral or written.
A. Judicial- those made in the course of the
proceedings of the case in which they are to be used
as evidence. This is governed by section 4.

B. Extra-Judicial- those made elsewhere but not in the

course of the proceedings where they are to be used
as evidence.
II. Effect of Judicial Admissions:

A. Upon the party making the admission: The party

making the admission is bound by it. The admission is
conclusive as to him. He will not be permitted to
introduce evidence which will vary, contradict or deny
the fact he has admitted.

1.“The exception is found only in those rare instances

when the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion
and because of strong reasons to support its stand,
may relieve a party from the consequences of his
admission”

2. All such evidence to the contrary are to be

disregarded by the court even in the absence of an
3. Examples:

a). “ The rule on judicial admissions found its way into black-
letter law only in 1964 but its content is supplied by case law
much older and in many instances more explicit than the
present codal provision. In the early case of Irlanda vs.
Pitarque (1918) this court laid down the doctrine that acts or
facts admitted does not require proof and cannot be
contradicted unless it can be shown that the admission was
made through palpable mistake. The rule was more forcibly
stated …in the 1918 decision in Ramirez vs. Orientalist Co. “
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 was interposed by
the opposite party or not” (Heirs of Clemenia vs. Heirs of
Bien, 501 SCRA 405)
b). Joshua Alfelor vs. Hosefina Halasan (March 31, 2006)

The spouses Telesforo and Cecilia Alfelor died leaving behind

several heirs. One of the children was Jose who himself died
leaving behind children and a wife named Teresita . In1998 the
heirs filed a complaint for partition of the estate of their deceased
parents. A certain Hosefina Halaan filed a Motion for Intervention
claiming she is the legal wife of Jose. Teresita and the other
petitioners filed a Reply in Intervention where Teresita stated she
knew of the previous marriage of Jose; that Hosefina left Jose in
1959 and there had been no news of her since then; that Jose
revealed he did not annul his marriage to Hosefina because he
believed in good faith to Hosefina. During the hearing of the
Motion for Intervention, Teresita admitted several times she knew
of the previous marriage of Jose to Hosefina. Since Hosefina did
not appear during the hearing to support her claim, of being the
first wife her motion was denied.

Issue: Was there need to prove the existence of the first marriage?
Held: No. The admission in the Reply in Intervention and the
testimony of Teresita as to the previous marriage qualifies as
a Judicial Admission.

A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that

fact as judicial admissions are waiver of proof; production of
evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission also
removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy.
Consequently, an admission made in the pleading cannot be
controverted by the party making such admissions and are
conclusive as to that party, and all proof to the contrary or
inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is
interposed by the party or not. The allegation statements or
admissions are conclusive against the pleader. A party cannot
subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with
what was pleaded.

B. Upon the opposite party: He need not introduce any

evidence on the matter which was admitted.
How judicial admissions may be contradicted – Judicial
admissions can be contradicted: (1) when it is shown
that the admission was made through palpable
mistake; or (2) when it is shown that no such
admission was in fact made. These exceptions may
negate the admission. But before the court may allow
a party to relieve him of the effects of admissions or
to withdraw therefrom, he has to show, by proper
motion, justifiable reason or palpable mistake (Sun
Brothers Appliances, Inc. vs. Caluntad, 16 SCRA
895).
The allegation of the assessed value of the realty must be
found in the complaint, if the action (other than forcible entry
or unlawful detainer) involves title to or possession of the
realty, including quieting of title of the realty. If the assessed
value is not found in the complaint, the action should be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court is not
thereby afforded the means of determining from the
allegations of the basic pleading whether jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the action pertains to it or to another court.
Courts cannot take judicial notice of the assessed or market
value of the realty (Penta Pacific Realty Corporation v. Ley
Corporation [2014]).
III. Sources of Judicial Admissions:

A. Voluntary Admissions

1. Admissions contained in the allegations in the pleadings

a. In a civil case: The plaintiff is bound by the statement of

causes of actions in his Complaint including the number,
nature and circumstances thereof, as well as the statement of
facts in support thereof. The defendant is bound by the facts
alleged in the Complaint which he expressly admits in his
Answer; by his own statement of facts; by the nature, number
and circumstances of the defenses contained in his Answer.
They are similar bound by the allegations of facts in their
Reply, Comment or Rejoinder to each other’s pleadings.
b. As to amended pleadings: one view holds that the
original pleadings ceased to be part of the records
and cease to be judicial admissions. If at all they may
constitute extra-judicial admissions which will have to
be formally offered in evidence. Another view, as that
of Justice F. Regallado says amended pleadings are
still covered by section 4.

c. In a criminal case, the narration of facts in the body

of the Information are deemed admissions by the
Prosecution
2. Admissions and Stipulations made during the
Preliminary Conference and/or Pre-Trial which are
reduced into writing and signed by the party and his
counsel.

a). But in criminal cases, there can be no stipulation as

to circumstances which qualifies a crime or increase
the penalty to death.

b). Example: In criminal cases of theft or robbery there

can be stipulation as to the ownership or possessor of
the property, the value thereof; the arrest or
surrender of the accused; identity of the accused
SOURCES OF ADMISSIONS:

3. Admissions and stipulations made during the course

of the trial itself, which need not be reduced in writing

4. Compromise agreements, which thus can be the

basis of a judgment which is immediately executory.

5. Admissions by way of responses or answers to

requests for admissions or interrogatories pursuant to
Rule 26 (Modes of Discovery)
B. Involuntary Admissions: those where it is the law
which declares that a party is deemed to have
admitted a fact.

1. Section 8 of Rule 8 directs that (a) failure to

specifically under oath an actionable document is an
admission of its genuiness and due execution (b)
failure to deny the material averments of the
Complaint is an admission of the truth thereof

C. Effect of a Withdrawn Plea of Guilt: A plea of guilty is

an admission of the factual allegations of the
Information but not conclusions of law. The former
plea is not an admission because the accused has
the right to change his plea of guilty to not guilty
III. By Whom Made:

A. By the parties themselves

B. By the counsel under the principle of agency:

exceptions: In civil cases (i) when the admission
amounts to a surrender, waiver, or destruction of the
client’s cause (ii) if the compromise is for an amount
less than that demanded by the client (iii) those which
are due to the gross and inexcusable ignorance or
negligence of counsel
In criminal cases:

Example: PP. vs. Hermones (March 6, 2002). FACTS:

In a prosecution for rape the counsel for the accused
filed a manifestation stating that the accused is
remorseful and was intoxicated when he raped his
foster daughter and he will present evidence of
intoxication, plea of guilt and lack of intent. Are these
conclusive upon the accused? HELD: No. The
authority of an attorney to bind his client as to any
admissibility of fact is limited to matters of judicial
procedure but not to admissions which operate as a
waiver, surrender or destruction of the client’s cause.
Requisites for admissibility of evidence:

(1) In order that evidence may be admissible, two requisites

must concur, namely:
(a) That it is relevant to the issue; and
(b) That it is competent, that is, that it does not belong to that
class of evidence which is excluded by the law or the
rules.

(2) Admissibility is determined, first, by relevancy—an affair of

logic and not of law; second, but only indirectly, by the law of
evidence which, in strictness, only declares whether matter
which is logically probative is excluded (Presumptions and the
Law of Evidence, 3 Harv. L. Rev. 13-14).

(3) Relevant evidence – evidence which has a relation to the

fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence; evidence which tends in any reasonable degree to
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
Competent and credible evidence

(1) Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by law or the rules. In
the law of evidence, competency means the presence of those
characteristics, or the absence of those disabilities, which render a
witness legally fit and qualified to give testimony in a court of justice;
which is applied, in the same sense, to documents or other written
evidence (Balck‘s Law Dictionary). Exclusionary rule makes evidence
illegally obtained as inadmissible in evidence, hence, not competent.

(2) A witness may be competent, and yet give incredible testimony; he

may be incompetent, and yet his evidence, if received, be perfectly
credible.

(3) Trial courts may allow a person to testify as a witness upon a given
matter because he is competent, but may thereafter decide whether to
believe or not to believe his testimony. Credibility depends on the
appreciation of his testimony and arises from the brief conclusion of the
court that said witness is telling the truth (Gonzales vs. CA, 90 SCRA
183).
2002 Bar: Acting on a tip by an informant, police officers stopped a
car being driven by D and ordered him to open the trunk. The
officers found a bag containing several kilos of cocaine. They
seized the car and the cocaine as evidence. Without advising him
of his right to remain silent and to have the assistance of an
attorney, they questioned him regarding the cocaine. In reply, D
said, ― I don‘t know anything about it. It isn‘t even in my car. D
was charged with illegal possession of cocaine, a prohibited drug.
Upon motion of D, the court suppressed the use of cocaine as
evidence and dismissed the charges against him. D commenced
proceedings against the police for the recovery of his car. In his
direct examination, D testified that he owned the car but had
registered it in the name of his friend for convenience. On cross-
examination, the attorney representing the police asked, ― After
your arrest, did you not tell the arresting officers that it wasn‘t your
car?

If you were D‘s attorney, would you object to the question? Why?
(5%)
Answer: Yes, because his admission made when he
was questioned after he was placed under arrest
was in violation of his constitutional rights to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have a
competent and independent counsel of his own
choice. Hence, it is inadmissible in evidence (Art.
III, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution; People vs. Mahinay,
302 SCREA 455).
A lie detector test is based on the theory that an
individual will undergo physiological changes,
capable of being monitored by sensors attached to
his body, to detect when he is not telling the truth.
The result of a lie detector test is not given faith
credit inasmuch as it has not been accepted by the
scientific community as an accurate means of
ascertaining truth or deception (People v. Carpo
[2000]).
Photographs are admissible in evidence in motor
vehicle accidents cases when they appear to have
been accurately taken and are proved to be a
faithful and clear representation of the subject,
which cannot itself be produced. And are of such
nature as to throw light upon a disputed point.
Before a photograph may be admitted in evidence,
however, its accurateness or correctness must be
proved, and it must first be authenticated or verified
(Macalinao v. Ong [2005]).
Multiple admissibility

(1) When a fact is offered for one purpose, and is

admissible in so far as it satisfies all rules applicable
to it when offered for that purpose, its failure to satisfy
some other rule which would be applicable to it if
offered for another purpose does not exclude it
(Wigmore‘s Code of Evidence, 3rd Ed., p. 18).
Conditional admissibility

(1) Where two or more evidentiary facts are so connected under the
issues that the relevancy of one depends upon another not yet
evidenced, and the party is unable to introduce them both at the
same moment, the offering counsel may be required by the court,
as a condition precedent (a) to state the supposed connecting
facts; and (b) to promise to evidence them later. If a promise thus
made is not fulfilled, the court may strike out the evidence thus
conditionally admitted, if a motion is made by the opposite party.
Thus, evidence of facts and declarations may not become material
or admissible until shown to be those of an agent of the other
party, and a copy of a writing may not become competent
evidence until the original is proven to be lost or destroyed
(Wigmore on Evidence).

(2) Evidence which appears to be immaterial is admitted by the court

subject to the condition that its connection with other facts
subsequently to be proved will be established (People vs. Yatco,
97 Phil. 940).
Curative admissibility

(1) Where an inadmissible fact has been offered by one party

and received without objection, and the opponents
afterwards, for the purpose of negativing or examining or
otherwise counteracting it, offers a fact similarly inadmissible,
such fact is admissible if it serves to remove an unfair effect
upon the court which might otherwise ensue from the original
fact. If the opponent made a timely objection at the time the
inadmissible evidence was offered, and his objection was
erroneously overruled in the first instance, the claim to
present similar inadmissible facts would be untenable since
his objection would save him, on appeal, from any harm
which may accrue (McCormick on Evidence, p. 35).

(2) Evidence, otherwise improper, is admitted to contradict

improper evidence introduced by the other party (1 Wigmore
304-309).
 BURDEN OF PROOF
AND
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
(1) 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 (Sec. 1, Rule 131).
(2) The presumption of regularity obtains only when
nothing in the records suggests that the law
enforcers involved deviated from the standard
conduct of official duty as provided for in the law.
But where the official act in question is irregular on
its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter
of course. Thus, when it is clear that the police
officers were remiss in showing that they preserved
the chain of custody when they failed to present the
testimony of the inspector who had the only keys to
the evidence locker where the sachet of shabu was
kept, the presumption of regularity shall not apply.
(People v. Abetong, GR No. 209785, 06/04/2014).
It is a settled rule that, as in other civil cases, the burden of
proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the
pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative
issue. Contentions must be proved by competent evidence
and reliance must be had on the strength of the party‘s own
evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponent‘s
defense. This principle holds true especially when the latter
has had no opportunity to present evidence because of a
default order, as in the present case. The petitioner is not
automatically entitled to the relief prayed for. The pieces of
documents presented by BDO are not only self-serving but
are not supported by sufficient and credible evidence. BDO
failed to meet its burden of proving its claims by
preponderance of evidence.
(Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc. v. Sps. Locsin, GR No. 190445,
07/23/2014).
As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be
proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence,
the burden of proof lies on the party alleging
forgery. One who alleges forgery has the burden to
establish his case by a preponderance of evidence,
or evidence which is of greater weight or more
convincing than that which is offered in opposition
to it. The fact of forgery can only be established by
a comparison between the alleged forged signature
and the authentic and genuine signature of the
person whose signature is theorized to have been
forged. (Gepulle-Garbo v. Sps. Garabato, GR No.
200013, 01/14/2015).
Presumptions
(1) Presumptions are species of evidence which may prove
certain issues in dispute. Presumptions are either conclusive
or disputable.
(2) A conclusive presumption is an inference which the law
makes so peremptory that it will not allow it to be overturned
by a contrary proof however strong. It is an artificially
compelling force which requires the trier of facts to find such
fact as conclusively presumed and which renders evidence
to the contrary inadmissible. It is sometimes referred to as
irrebuttable presumption.
(3) A disputable presumption is an inference as to the
existence of fact not actually known which arises from its
usual connection with another fact is known, which may be
overcome by contrary proof. Between a proven fact and a
presumption pro tanto, the former stands and the latter falls
(Ledesma vs. Realubin, 8 SCRA 608).
Conclusive presumptions -- The following are
instances of conclusive presumptions:

(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration,

act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led
another to believe a particular thing 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:

(b) 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 (Sec.
2, Rule 131).
Disputable presumptions (Juris tantum) -- The following
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may
be contradicted and overcome by other evidence (Sec. 3,
Rule 131):

(a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;

(b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent;
(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his
voluntary act;
(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
(e) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
produced;
(f) That money paid by one to another was due to the latter;
(g) That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the
latter;
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been
paid;
Liberal Construction of the Rules of Evidence

(1) Court litigations are primarily for the search of truth, and a
liberal interpretation of the rules by which both parties are given
the fullest opportunity to adduce proofs is the best way to ferret
out the truth (People vs. Ebias, 342 SCRA 675).

(2) Liberal interpretation means such equitable construction as

will enlarge the letter of rule to accomplish its intended
purpose, carry out its intent, or promote justice. It is that
construction which expands the meaning of the rule to meet
cases which are clearly within the spirit or reason thereof or
which gives a rule its generally accepted meaning to the end
that the most comprehensive application thereof may be
accorded, without doing violence to any of its terms. In short,
liberal construction means that the words should receive a fair
and reasonable interpretation, so as to secure a just, speedy
and inexpensive disposition of every action or proceeding
(Agpalo, Statutory Construction, p. 287 [1998]).
Quantum of Evidence (Weight and Sufficiency of
Evidence (Rule 133)

(1) In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, the highest

is proof beyond reasonable doubt, followed by
clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of
evidence, and substantial evidence, in that order
(Manalo vs. Roldan-Confessor, 215 SCRA 808;
ERB vs. CA, 357 SCRA 30 [2001]).
It has been held, time and again, that alibi, as a
defense, is inherently weak and crumbles in light of
positive identification by truthful witnesses. It
should be noted that for alibi to prosper, it is not
enough for the accused to prove that he was in
another place when the crime was committed. He
must likewise prove that it was physically
impossible for him to be present at the crime scene
or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission. As testified by Lujeco, he was at the
public market of Don Carlos, Bukidnon.
Undoubtedly, it was not impossible for him to be at
the crime scene. (People v. Lujeco, GR No.
198059, 04/07/2014).
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required
to establish a respondent‘s malfeasance is not proof
beyond reasonable doubt but substantial evidence, i.e.,
that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is
required. Faced with conflicting versions of complainant
and respondent, the Court gives more weight to the
allegations and testimony of the complainant and her
witnesses who testified clearly and consistently before the
Investigating Judge. In the instant case, the strongest
corroborative evidence to support complainant Emilie‘s
allegations was the exchange of text messages between
her and respondent Pecaña regarding the dinner meeting.
These text messages were admitted by respondent
Pecaña. (Sison-Barias v. Judge Rubia, AM No. RTJ-14-
2388, 06/10/2014).
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum
of proof required is preponderance of evidence.
When the complainant adduced preponderant
evidence that his signature was indeed forged in an
affidavit which the respondent notarized and
submitted to the COMELEC, respondent should be
held administratively liable for his action. (Sultan v.
Atty. Macabanding, AC No. 7919, 10/08/2014).
The term “reasonable doubt” is not equivalent to the
phrase “the act from which criminal responsibility
may arise did not at all exist” Although both have
the force of acquittal, the latter provides connotes
that the accused have not committed the offense.
(Daluraya v. Oliva, GR No. 210148, 12/08/2014).
2003 Bar: Distinguish preponderance of evidence
from substantial evidence. (4%)

Answer: Preponderance of evidence means that the

evidence as a whole adduced by one side is
superior to that of the other. This is applicable in
civil cases (Sec. 1, Rule 133; Municipality of
Moncada v. Cajuigan, 21 Phil. 184 [1912]).

Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant

evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion. This is applicable
in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial
bodies (Sec. 5, Rule 133).