Anda di halaman 1dari 520

EVIDENCE

BAR REVIEW

ATTY. RAMON S. ESGUERRA


GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
CONCEPT OF
EVIDENCE

Evidence is the means of


ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding, the truth respecting a
matter of fact (Rule 128, Sec. 1).
CONCEPT OF
EVIDENCE
•Evidence is adduced to address questions of
facts.

 Questions of fact v. questions of law


• Questions of fact exist when the doubt or
difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of
alleged facts.

• On the other hand, questions of law exist


when the doubt or difference arises as to
what the law is on a certain set of facts.
CONCEPT OF
EVIDENCE
•Sources of Rules on Evidence
Substantive
 Constitution (e.g. Art. III, Sec. 2 – unlawful search and seizure; Sec.
3 – privacy of communication or correspondence; Sec. 12 – rights of
persons under custodial investigation; Sec. 17 – rights of accused
against self-incrimination).

 General laws (e.g. New Civil Code, Art. 1735 – presumption of


negligence against common carrier unless they show exercise of
extraordinary diligence; Labor Code, Art. 233 – parties’ statement
during conciliation proceedings are privileged communications).

 Special laws (e.g. R.A. No. 7438 – rights of persons detained or


under custodial investigation; R.A. No. 8505, Sec. 6. – Rape shield
rule).
CONCEPT OF
EVIDENCE
Sources of Rules on Evidence

Jurisprudence (e.g. doctrine of executive


privilege, Neri v. Senate, Akbayan v. Aquino)

Procedural (e.g. Rules of Court, Rule on


Examination of Child Witness, Rule on DNA
Evidence, Rule on Electronic Evidence, etc.)
SCOPE OF THE RULES
ON EVIDENCE
•Uniform application in judicial proceedings
 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.(Rule 128, Sec. 2).
• Evidentiary rules under the Rules of Court are
specifically applicable only in judicial proceedings.

• In quasi-judicial proceedings, the same apply by


analogy, or in a suppletory character, and whenever
practicable and convenient (Rule 1, Sec. 4).
SCOPE OF THE RULES
ON EVIDENCE
•Rules of evidence are procedural in nature.
Thus, it must not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights (Article VIII, Section 5, par. 5, 1987 Constitution).
New rules may be held applicable to cases pending at the
time of the change in rules as parties have no vested right in
the rules of evidence; except in criminal cases when the new
rule would permit reception of a lesser quantum of evidence
to convict. (See Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution
prohibiting ex post facto laws and bill of attainders).
EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES VERSUS EVIDENCE IN
CRIMINAL CASES
Basis Criminal Civil
Preponderance of
Proof beyond reasonable
Quantum of Proof evidence (Rule 133, Sec.
doubt (Rule 133, Sec. 2).
1).
The decision should be
Effect if the evidence of the
Accused is acquitted. against the party who has
parties are in equipoise.
the burden of proof.
Accused may be
Accused cannot be compelled to be a witness.
Compulsion as witness.
compelled to be a witness. The rules only provide for
certain limitations.
The presence of one
More than one circumstantial
Effect of circumstantial circumstantial evidence
evidence is required to prove
evidence. may be enough to prove a
the crime.
cause of action.
Cross examination in cases
covered by summary Allowed Not allowed
procedure.
PROOF VERSUS
EVIDENCE
•Proof is the effect of evidence. It is the
probative effect of evidence and is the
conviction or persuasion of the mind
resulting from a consideration of the latter.

•Evidence is the cause necessary to


establish proof. It is also the mode and
manner of proving competent facts.
FACTUM PROBANS VERSUS
FACTUM PROBANDUM
•Factum probans is the evidentiary fact or the fact by
which the factum probandum is to be established.
 Example: BBB’s admission that he is AAA’s father,
and/or the existence of AAA’s birth certificate wherein
BBB is indicated as AAA’s father.

•Factum probandum is the ultimate fact sought to be


established.
 Example: AAA’s uninterrupted possession of the status
of a natural child of BBB.
FREQUENTLY-ASKED
QUESTIONS (FAQS)
•ADMISSIBILITY – 11 times
•HEARSAY – 11 times
•WITNESS – 6 times
•PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION – 5 times
•JUDICIAL NOTICE – 3 times
•ADMISSIONS & CONFESSIONS – 3 times
•DNA EVIDENCE – 3 times
•ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE – 3 times
•OFFER OF EVIDENCE – 2 times
ADMISSIBILITY
OF EVIDENCE
(ASKED IN 1997, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009,
2010, 2012, AND 2013)
1. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

(asked in 1997, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,


2006, 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013)

• Requisites for admissibility of evidence


1. Relevance; and
2. Competence
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
•Requisites for admissibility of evidence
1. Relevance
 Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
issue (Rule 128, Sec. 3).
 Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence (Rule 128, Sec. 4).
 Relevance depends on the factum probandum, or
the ultimate fact sought to be proved.
 Relevance is determined by rules of logic and
human experience.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
•Requisites for admissibility of evidence
2. Competence
• The evidence must not be excluded by law or
by the Rules of Court (Rule 128, Sec. 3).
• All facts having rational probative value are
admissible unless some specific rule forbids
their admission.
• Competence is an affair of logic and law.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
•Requisites for admissibility of evidence
2. Competence
 Examples of exclusionary rules under the 1987
Constitution:
 The right against unreasonable searches and
seizures (Art. III, Sec. 2).
 The right to privacy of communication and
correspondence Art. III, Sec. 3).
 The rights of a person under custodial investigation
(Art. III, Sec. 12).
 The right against self-incrimination (Art. III, Sec. 17).
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
•Requisites for admissibility of evidence
2. Competence
 Examples of statutory exclusionary rules:
Section 201, NIRC - An instrument, document or paper
which is required by law to be stamped and which has
been signed, issued, accepted or transferred without
being duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or
any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the same be
admitted or used in evidence in any court until the
requisite stamp or stamps shall have been affixed thereto
and cancelled.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
•Requisites for admissibility of evidence
2. Competence
 Examples of statutory exclusionary rules:
R.A. No. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act) - It shall be unlawful
for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or
cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or
spoken work by using a device commonly known as a
Dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or
tape recorder, or however otherwise described. x x x (Section
1).
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
•Requisites for admissibility of evidence
2. Competence
 Examples of statutory exclusionary rules:
R.A. No. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act) –
Any communication or spoken word, or the existence,
contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the
same or any part thereof, or any information therein
contained, obtained or secured by any person in violation
of R.A. No. 42 ‒ shall not be admissible in evidence in
any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative
hearing or investigation (R.A. No. 4200, Sec. 4).
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
•Requisites for admissibility of evidence
2. Competence
 Examples of exclusionary rules under the Rules of Court:

 Best Evidence Rule


 Parole Evidence Rule
 Hearsay Rule
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
•Relevance of evidence and collateral matters

• Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in


issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall
not be allowed, except when it tends in any
reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue (Rule 128, Sec.
4).
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
•Multiple admissibility
• When evidence is relevant and competent for two
or more purposes, such evidence should be
admitted for any and all the purposes for which it is
offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of
law for its admissibility. (Regalado, Remedial Law
Compendium [Vol. II], pp. 694-695).
• Example: An extrajudicial confession may be
inadmissible as against a party who did not
subscribe to it, yet such party may use said
document as evidence of lack of guilt.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
Conditional admissibility

Where the evidence at the time it is


offered appears to be immaterial or
irrelevant unless it is connected with the
other facts to be subsequently proved,
such evidence may be received on the
condition that the other facts will be
proved thereafter, otherwise the evidence
will be stricken out.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
Conditional admissibility

Example: AAA files an action for recovery of


ownership of a parcel of land against ZZZ. The
complaint alleges that AAA is the owner of the
property. During the trial, AAA testifies and
adduces evidence that a certain XXX bought the
property from ZZZ. The testimony of XXX may be
allowed if it would be shown the chain of events
that led to the ownership of AAA of the land.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
•Curative admissibility
 There is curative admissibility when a party
offers an inadmissible fact which is received
because there is no objection by the other
party. The other party does not acquire the
right to introduce in reply to the same kind
of evidence, except whenever it is needed
for removing an unfair prejudice which
might otherwise have ensued from the
original evidence.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
•Curative admissibility
 Example: In an action for damages arising from a
car accident, the plaintiff introduced evidence to
show that on several occasions the defendant in
the past had injured pedestrians because of his
negligence. (This is inadmissible under Rule 130,
Section 34-Prior acts as evidence). Under the
concept of curative admissibility the court must give
the party against whom the evidence was admitted
the chance to contradict or explain the alleged past
acts he committed to counteract the prejudice
which the improperly admitted evidence may have
caused.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
•Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

•Direct evidence – refers to evidence that directly


proves a fact without need to make inference from
another fact.

 Example: The testimony of the prosecution witness


claiming that he saw that it was actually the deceased
who attacked the accused without the latter’s
provocation is a direct evidence.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
•Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
•Circumstantial evidence – refers to proof of the fact or
facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the
existence of a particular fact in dispute may be inferred as
a necessary or probable consequence.

 Example: The testimony of the victim that he dreads the


mere presence of the accused is direct evidence that
the statement was made. It is likewise circumstantial
evidence to show that this fear prevented the victim
from attacking the accused without provocation.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
Positive and negative evidence

 Positive evidence - when a witness affirms that a fact


did or did not occur. This is entitled to greater weight
since witness relates matters within his personal
knowledge.

 Negative evidence - a witness states that an event did


not occur or that the facts alleged to exist did not
actually exist.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
Competent and credible evidence

 Competent evidence – refers to evidence which is not


excluded by law in a particular case.

 Credibility – refers to worthiness of belief, that quality


which renders a witness worthy of belief (Black’s Law
Dictionary, 5th ed., 330). Whether or not a witness or
evidence is credible is an issue addressed to the
judgment of the trial court (People v. Castro, G.R. No.
172874, 17 December 2008).
OBJECT (REAL)
EVIDENCE
OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE

Objects as evidence are those


addressed to the senses of the
court (Rule 130, Sec. 1).
NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE

Object evidence includes any article or


object which may be known or perceived
by the use of any of the senses – sight
(visual), hearing (auditory), touch (tactile),
taste (gustatory), or smell (olfactory).
NATURE OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
Object Evidence includes:
 Examination of the anatomy of a person or of any
substance taken therefrom;
 Conduct of tests, demonstrations, or experiments;
 Examination of representative portrayals of the object in
question;
 Documents – only if the same are presented for the
following purposes:
• To prove their existence or condition or the nature of the
handwritings thereon;
• To determine the age of the paper used or the blemishes or
alterations thereon.
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY
• When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may
be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court
(Rule 130, Sec. 1).
• Court may refuse introduction of object evidence and
rely on testimonial evidence alone if:
- Exhibition of such object is contrary to public policy,
morals or decency.
• But if viewing is necessary in the interest of justice,
the evidence may still be exhibited but the court may
exclude the public from such view
• Viewing may not be refused if the indecent or
immoral object constitutes the very basis for the
criminal or civil action.
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

• To require that it be viewed in court or in an ocular


inspection would result in delays, inconvenience and
expenses out of proportion to the evidentiary value of
such object;

• Such object evidence would be confusing or


misleading;

• Testimonial or documentary evidence already


presented clearly portrays the object in question as to
render viewing unnecessary.
CATEGORIES OF OBJECT
EVIDENCE
•The following are categories of object evidence:
– Unique Objects or objects that have readily identifiable
marks
• Example: caliber revolver with serial number

– Objects made unique or objects that are made readily


identifiable
• Example: knife with the name of the owner

– Non-unique objects or objects with no identifying marks


and cannot be marked.
• Example: drugs in powder form
DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
Demonstrative evidence is evidence in the form of a
representation of an object. This is, as opposed to, real
evidence, testimony, or other forms of evidence used at
trial.

Examples: photos, x-rays, videotapes, movies, sound


recordings, diagrams, forensic animation, maps, drawings,
graphs, animation, simulations, and models.

Demonstrative evidence is useful in assisting a finder of fact


(fact-finder) in establishing context among the facts
presented in a case.
VIEW OF AN OBJECT OR
SCENE

• Autoptic proference, in legal parlance, simply means a


tribunal's self-perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself.
(Balingit v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 170300, 9 February 2007).

• It is referred to as the evidential datum which decision-


makers will perceive using their five senses (Anderson,
Schum, and Twining, Analysis of Evidence, 2nd Ed.).
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002

The Chain of Custody Rule

•As a method of authenticating evidence,


the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002

The Chain of Custody Rule

• It would include testimony about every link in the chain,


from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is
offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it
was received, where it was and what happened to it while
in the witnesses' possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the
next link in the chain.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002

The Chain of Custody Rule

• These witnesses would then describe the


precautions taken to ensure that there had been no
change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same. (People v. Kamad, G.R.
No. 174198, 19 January 2010).
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002

Essential links in the chain of custody of seized


illegal drugs
• The following are the links that must be established in the
chain of custody of seized illegal drugs: first, the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; 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; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court. (People v. Fermin and Madayag, Jr., G.R. No. 179344,
3 August 2011).
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002

Essential links in the chain of custody of seized


illegal drugs
• As provided by the implementing rules and jurisprudence,
strict compliance of the requisites under Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 can be disregarded as long as the
evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are
properly preserved; and its preservation can be well
established if the chain of custody of illegal drug was
unbroken. (People v. Fermin and Madayag, Jr., G.R. No.
179344, 3 August 2011).
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002

Testimony on perfect chain not required

• The Supreme Court held that, “undeniably, a


testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain
an unbroken chain...what is of utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items.”
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21 OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002

Testimony on perfect chain not required


• An astute perusal of Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165
readily reveals that the custodial chain rule is not to be
rigorously applied, provided "the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team." Thus, the
supposed procedural infirmities alleged by Quiamanlon
with regard to the custody, photographing, inventory, and
marking of the seized items do not, in any manner, affect
the prosecution of the instant case and do not render her
arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible
(People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January
2011).
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002
Presentation of confidential informant not
indispensable
• The non-presentation of the confidential informant is not
fatal to the prosecution’s case. The presentation of an
informant is not a requisite in the prosecution of drug
cases. The failure to present the informant does not vitiate
the prosecution’s cause as his testimony is not
indispensable to a successful prosecution for drug-pushing
since it would be merely corroborative of, and cumulative
with, that of the poseur-buyer who was presented in court
and testified on the facts and circumstances of the sale
and delivery of the prohibited drug. (People v. Andres, G.R.
No. 193184, 7 February 2011).
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002
When non-presentation of informant / poseur-
buyer is fatal to prosecution’s cause
None of the members of the buy-bust team had directly
witnessed the transaction, if any, between accused and the
poseur buyer due to their being positioned at a distance from
the poseur buyer and accused at the moment of the
supposed transaction. The members of the buy-bust team
arrested accused on the basis of the pre-arranged signal
from the poseur-buyer. The hearsay character of the signal
rendered it entirely bereft of trustworthiness. The reliance on
the signal would deprive accused the right to confront and
test the credibility of the poseur buyer who supposedly gave
it. (People v. Amin, G.R. No. 215942, 18 January 2017)
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21 OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002

Failure to immediately mark seized drugs

The failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not


automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody as long
as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items have been preserved, as these would be utilized in
the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
What is essential is that the police officers account for the
crucial links in the chain of custody of seized illegal drugs.
(People v. Morales, G.R. No. 188608, 9 February 2011).
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002

Failure to take photographs and inventory the


same is not fatal as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of seized illegal drugs were
preserved
•In People v. Presas (G.R. No. 182525, 2 March 2011), the
Supreme Court noted that the failure of the prosecution to
show that the police officers conducted the required
physical inventory and photograph of the evidence
confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, does not
automatically render accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized from him inadmissible.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002
Failure to take photographs and inventory the
same is not fatal as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of seized illegal drugs were
preserved
• Notably, the implementing rules of the IRR provide that "non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds,
as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items." The same provision also states
that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds
and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence have been preserved.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002
Presumption of regularity, standing alone,
cannot defeat the presumption of innocence
• The presumption that the police officers regularly performed their
duty cannot, standing alone, defeat the presumption of innocence
of the accused. Generally, law enforcers are presumed to have
regularly performed their duty, but this is a mere procedural
presumption which cannot overturn the constitutionally recognized
presumption of innocence of the accused where lapses in the buy
bust operation are shown. An effect of this lapse, as held in
Lopez v. People, is to negate the presumption that official
duties have been regularly performed by the police officers.
Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and
should make the presumption unavailable (People v. Martin,
G.R. No. 193234, 19 October 2011).
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002

Presumption of regularity, standing alone, cannot


defeat the presumption of innocence
• Indeed, anything short of observance and
compliance by the arresting lawmen with what the
law required meant that the former did not regularly
perform their duties. The presumption of regularity in
the performance of their duties then became
inapplicable. As such, the evidence of the State did
not overturn the presumption of innocence in favor
of the accused. (People v. Barte, G.R. No. 179749,
1 March 2017)
2012 BAR EXAMS

R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive


Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

Question:

Discuss the "chain of custody" principle with


respect to evidence seized under R.A. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
(5%)
BURDEN OF PROOF AND
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE

• 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. (Rule 131, Sec. 1).

• Examples: (a) conviction in a criminal case – proof


beyond reasonable doubt; (b) probable cause in the
issuance of warrant after preliminary investigation –
reasonable ground that an offense has been committed;
(c) probable cause in filing of criminal information – prima
facie evidence; (d) civil cases – preponderance of
evidence; (e) administrative cases – substantial evidence.
BURDEN OF PROOF AND
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE

• Burden of evidence is the duty resting upon a party,


by means of evidence, to create or meet a prima facie
case.

• Burden of proof never shifts, while burden of evidence


is transferred from one litigant to another depending on
the progress of trial.
BURDEN OF PROOF AND
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence
Civil cases – The burden is on the Both civil and criminal cases – The
party who would be defeated if no burden lies with the party who
evidence were given on either side. asserts an affirmative allegation.
Criminal cases – The burden is
always on the prosecution.
The burden of proof does not shift The burden of evidence shifts from
as it remains throughout the trial party to party depending on the
with the party upon whom it is exigencies of the case in the course
imposed. of the trial.
The burden of proof is generally The burden of evidence is generally
determined by the pleading filed by determined by the developments of
the party. the trial or by provisions of law.
BURDEN OF PROOF AND
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Negative allegations
• Note that a negative allegation does not have to
be proven unless the same is an essential part of
the cause of action or defense.
• However, in civil cases, even if a negative
allegation is an essential part of the defense,
such does not have to be proven if it is only for
the purpose of denying the existence of a
document which would properly be in the custody
of the adverse party.
BURDEN OF PROOF AND
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Negative allegations
• If the criminal charge is predicated on a negative
allegation or that a negative averment is an
essential element of the crime - the prosecution
has the burden of proving the charge.
• Where the negative of an issue does not permit
of direct proof, or where the facts are more
immediately within the knowledge of the
accused, the onus probandi rests on him.
BURDEN OF PROOF AND
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Equipoise or Equiponderance Doctrine.
• Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or
there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates,
the party having the burden of proof fails upon that issue
(Rivera v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115625,
January 23, 1998).
• Therefore, as neither party was able to make out a case,
neither side could establish its cause of action and prevail
with the evidence it had. They are thus no better off than
before they proceeded to litigate, and, as a consequence
thereof, the courts can only leave them as they are (Rivera,
supra citing Municipality of Candijay, Bohol v. Court of
Appeals, 251 SCRA 530).
BURDEN OF PROOF AND
BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Equipoise or Equiponderance Doctrine.

• The equipoise rule finds application if the


inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable
of two or more explanations, one of which is
consistent with the innocence of the accused and
the other consistent with his guilt, for then the
evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty,
and does not suffice to produce a conviction.
(Bernardino v. People, G.R. Nos. 170453 and
170518, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 237, 25).
2004 BAR EXAMS
BURDEN OF PROOF v. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Distinction

Question:

Distinguish clearly but briefly between:

1. Burden of proof and burden of evidence. x x x


2004 BAR EXAMS
BURDEN OF PROOF v. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
Distinction
Suggested Answer:

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 of Rule
131), while burden of evidence is the duty of a party to go
forward with the evidence to overthrow prima facie evidence
established against him. (Bautista v. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA
587 [1985]).
DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE
MEANING OF DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE

• Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material


containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or
other modes of written expression offered as proof of their
contents (Rule 130, Sec.2).

• A document is a deed, instrument or other duly authorized


paper by which something is proved, evidenced or set forth
(U.S. v. Orera, 11 Phil 596).

• Documentary evidence is that which is furnished by written


instruments, inscriptions and documents of all kinds (32
CJS 475).
REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

• The following are the requisites for admissibility of


documentary evidence:

1. The document must be relevant;


2. The evidence must be authenticated;
3. The document must be authenticated by a
competent witness; and
4. The document must be formally offered in evidence.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE

a) Meaning of the rule

• When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a


document, no evidence shall be admissible other
than the original document itself (Rule 130, Sec.
3).
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
b) When applicable
• The rule is applicable when the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document (Rule 130, Sec. 3).
• The Best Evidence Rule does NOT apply:
(a) to proof of facts collateral to the issues, such as the
nature, appearance or condition of physical objects or to
evidence relating to a matter which does not come from
the foundation of the cause of action or defense; or
(b) when a party uses a document to prove the existence of
an independent fact, as to which the writing is merely
collateral or incidental (Lee v. People G.R. No. 159288, 19
October 1 2004).
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
b) When applicable

• Simply put, the Best Evidence Rule applies only when the
terms of a writing are in issue. When the evidence sought
to be introduced concerns external facts, such as the
existence, execution or delivery of the writing, without
reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be
invoked (Heirs of Prodon v. Heirs of Alvarez and Clave,
G.R. No. 170604, 2 September 2013).
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
To set this rule in motion, a proper and timely objection is
necessary. Evidence not objected to is deemed admitted
and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at
its judgment. Courts are not precluded to accept in
evidence a mere photocopy of a document when no
objection was raised when it was formally offered. In
order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of
evidence must be made at the proper time, and the
grounds specified. Objection to evidence must be made
at the time it is formally offered. And when a party failed
to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time
they were offered in evidence, such objection shall be
considered as waived. (Spouses Tapayan v. Martinez,
G.R. No. 207786, 30 January 2017)
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
c) Meaning of original
•The following are considered originals of a document:
1. The original of the document is one the contents of which
are the subject of inquiry (Rule 130, Sec. 4).
2. 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 (Rule 130, Sec.
4).
3. 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 (Rule 130, Sec. 4).
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
c) Meaning of original
•The following are considered originals of a document:

4. An electronic document shall be regarded as the


equivalent of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately. (Rules on Electronic Evidence, Sec. 1)
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
c) Meaning of original
•The following are considered originals of a document:
4. ..

5. Copies as equivalent of the originals – When a document


is in two or more copies executed at or about the same
time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced
by the same impression as the original, or from the same
matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by
chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques
which accurately reproduces the original. (Rules on
Electronic Evidence, Sec. 2)
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
c) Meaning of original

• N.B.: Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence,


copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the
same extent as the original if:
– a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the
original; or
– in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to
admit the copy in lieu of the original. (Rules on Electronic
Evidence, Sec. 2)
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
d) Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
• Secondary evidence is allowed in the following
instances:

1. When original is unavailable (Rule 130, Sec. 5)


– There must be proof by satisfactory evidence of:
• Due execution of the original
• Loss, destruction or unavailability of all such originals; and
• Reasonable diligence and good faith in the search for or attempt to
produce the original.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
d) Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
• Secondary evidence is allowed in the following
instances:
1. When original is unavailable (Rule 130, Sec. 5)
– How to Prove Due Execution:
1. Testimony of person/s who executed document;
2. Testimony of the person before whom its execution was
acknowledged; or
3. Any person who was present and saw it executed and
delivered or who thereafter saw it and recognized the signatures,
or one to whom the parties thereto had previously confessed the
execution thereof
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
d) Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
• Secondary evidence is allowed in the following
instances:
1. When original is unavailable (Rule 130, Sec. 5)
– Secondary evidence which could be introduced after proving
unavailability of the original (in the order stated):
1. Copy of said document;
2. Recital of its contents in an authentic document; or
3. Recollection of witnesses.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
d) Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
• Secondary evidence is allowed in the following
instances:
1. When original is unavailable (Rule 130, Sec. 5)
• Nevertheless, where the law specifically provides for
the class and quantum of secondary evidence to
establish the contents of a document, or bars
secondary evidence of a lost document, such
requirement is controlling.
– Example: lost notarial will requires the testimony
of at least 2 credible witnesses.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
d) Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
• Secondary evidence is allowed in the following
instances:
2. When original is in adverse party's custody or
control (Rule 130, Sec. 6)
– Requisites
1. Document is in the custody or under the control of adverse
party;
2. He must have reasonable notice to produce it;
3. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence,
he fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be
presented as in the case of its loss.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
d) Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
• Secondary evidence is allowed in the following
instances:
2. When original is in adverse party's custody or
control (Rule 130, Sec. 6)
Where the nature of the action is in itself a notice, as
where it is for the recovery or annulment of documents
wrongfully obtained or withheld by the other party, no
notice to produce said documents is required. (Warner,
Barnes & Co., Ltd. v. Buenaflor, 36 OG 3290)
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
d) Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
• Secondary evidence is allowed in the following
instances:
2. When original is in adverse party's custody or
control (Rule 130, Sec. 6)

• A party who calls for the production of a document


and inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as
evidence (Rule 130, Sec. 8).
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
d) Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
• Secondary evidence is allowed in the following
instances:
3. 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. (Rule 130, Sec. 3[c]).
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
d) Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
• Secondary evidence is allowed in the following
instances:
3. 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. (Rule 130, Sec. 3[c]).
– Requisites
1. The voluminous character of the records must be established;
and
2. Such records must be made accessible to the adverse party so
that their correctness may be tested on cross-examination
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
d) Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
• Secondary evidence is allowed in the following
instances:

4. When the original is a public record (Rule 130, Sec. 7)


When the original of document is in the custody of 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 RULE

• Parol Evidence refers to any evidence


aliunde, whether oral or written, which is
intended or tends to vary or contradict a
complete and enforceable agreement
embodied in a document.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
a) Application of the parol evidence rule
• The following are the requisites for the application of parol
evidence rule:
• There is a valid contract;
• The terms of agreement reduced to writing;
• There is an issue as to the terms of agreement;
• The dispute is between parties and their successors in
interest (Rule 130, Sec. 9).
• The written agreement is already considered to contain all the
things agreed upon. Being a final agreement any extraneous
evidence or parol evidence is inadmissible for any of the
following purposes: (a) to modify, (b) to explain; or (c) to add to
the terms of the written agreement.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
b) When parol evidence can be introduced
• A party may present evidence to –
a. Modify;
b. Explain; or
c. Add to the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his
pleading:
– An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
– The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
– The validity of the written agreement; or
– The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.
(Rule 130, Sec. 9)
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
b) When parol evidence can be introduced

• Example: The vendee of a parcel of land can


validly tell the court that the deed of sale subject of
litigation is not really one of sale but one of
mortgage as long as he puts in issue in the
pleadings, any of the matters enumerated above.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
b) When parol evidence can be introduced

• The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply, and may not
properly be invoked by either party to the litigation against
the other, where at least one party to the suit is not a party
or privy of a party to the written instrument in question and
does not base a claim or assert a right originating in the
instrument of the relation established thereby. Thus, if one
of the parties is a complete stranger to the contract, he is
not bound by the rule. (See Rule 130, Sec. 9, par. 1)
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
b) When parol evidence can be introduced

• Basis of Parol Evidence Rule


• Parol evidence is based upon the consideration that when
the parties have reduced their agreement on a particular
matter into writing, all their previous and
contemporaneous agreements on the matter are merged
therein. (De Guzman v. Calma, 100 Phil 1008).
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Original document is available in court. Original writing is not available and/or
there is a dispute as to whether said
writing is the original.
The rule prohibits the varying of the The rule prohibits the introduction of
terms of a written agreement. substitutionary evidence in lieu of the
original document.
With the exception of wills, this rule The rule applies to all kinds of writings.
applies only to documents which are
contractual in nature (“written
agreements”).
This rule can be invoked only when the This rule can be invoked by any party
controversy is between the parties to to an action regardless of whether or
the written agreement, their privies, or not such party has participated in the
any party directly affected thereby, e.g. writing involved.
cestui que trust.
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

a) Meaning of authentication

• Authentication is the act or mode of giving


authenticity to a statute, authority or other written
instrument, or a certified copy thereof, so as to
render it legally admissible in evidence (Herrera,
Remedial Law Vol. VI, 1999 ed., p. 262).
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

b) Public and private documents

• For the purpose of their presentation evidence,


documents are either (a) public or (b) private.
(Rule 132, Sec. 19).

• The classification of documents under the Rules


of Court is different from the classification of
documents into official, public, commercial and
private under the RPC (Regalado, p. 803).
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

b) Public and private documents


• 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 the entered therein (Rule
132, Sec. 19, par. 2).
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

b) Public and private documents


• All other writings are private (Rule 132, Sec. 19, par.
3).

• As a general rule, public documents need not be


authenticated; private documents have to be
authenticated to be admissible in evidence. (J.
Benipayo, Evidence: Basic Principles and Selected
Problems)
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

c) When a private writing requires


authentication; proof of a private writing
• 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 (Rule 132, Sec. 20, par. 1).

• Any other private document need only be identified as that


which it is claimed to be. (Rule 132, Sec. 20, par. 2).
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

d) When evidence of authenticity of a private


writing is not required (ancient documents)

• Evidence of authenticity is not required when:


• Private document is more than thirty years old;
• Produced from the 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
(Rule 132, Sec. 21).
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

e) How to prove genuineness of a handwriting


• The handwriting of a person may be proved by:
1. Testimony of:
• Witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument (Rule 132,
Sec. 20a).
• Witness familiar with such handwriting (Rule 132, Sec. 22) and who
can give his opinion thereon, such opinion being exception to opinion
rule (Rule 130, Sec 50b).
• Expert witness (Rule 130, Sec. 49).
2. Comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting
and admitted genuine specimens thereof (Rule 132, Sec. 22).
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

e) How to prove genuineness of a handwriting

• No preference rule - The law makes no preference, much


less distinction among and between the different means
stated in the Rules of Court in proving the handwriting of a
person. (Domingo v. Domingo, G.R. No. 150897, 11 April
2005)
• Probative value of opinions of handwriting experts -
Courts are not bound to give probative value or evidentiary
value to the opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to
handwriting experts is not mandatory. (Bautista v. Castro,
G.R. No. 61260, 17 February 1992, 206 SCRA 305, 312)
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

f) Public documents as evidence; proof of official


record
• Public documents as evidence
1. Entries in public records made in the performance of a
duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated. (Rule 132, Sec. 23).
2. 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 document. (Rule 132, Sec. 23).
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

f) Public documents as evidence; proof of


official record
• Proof of official records
• The record of public documents (referred to in paragraph
Rule 132, Sec. 19 [a]) may be evidenced by:
1. An official publication thereof; or
2 By a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy.
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

g) Attestation of a copy
•Attestation requirements.
• Primary requisites
1. Statement of correctness - The attestation must state,
in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the
original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be.
(Rule 132, Sec. 25)
2. Official Seal - The attestation must be under the
official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he
be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of
such court. (Rule 132, Sec. 25)
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

g) Attestation of a copy
•Attestation requirements.
• Requisites for foreign public documents
1. Certificate of custody - If the record is not kept in the
Philippines the copy must be accompanied by a certificate that
such officer has the custody. The certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept (Rule 132, Sec. 24).
2. Authentication – the certificate must be authenticated by the
seal of the office of the issuer (Rule 132, Sec. 24).
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

g) Attestation of a copy
•Attestation requirements.
–Requisites for foreign public documents

Absent the attestation of the officer having the legal custody


of the records and the certificate to that effect by a
Philippine foreign service officer, a mere copy of the foreign
document is NOT admissible as evidence to prove foreign
law (Wildvalley Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CA, G.R. No. 119602, 6
October 2000).
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

h) Public record of a public document


• Proof of public records of private documents
1. The original record; (Rule 132, Sec. 27)
2. Copy of the original record, attested by the legal
custodian of the record, with an appropriate
certificate that such officer has the custody. (Rule
132, Sec. 27)
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

i) Proof of lack of record

• A written statement signed by an officer having


the custody of an official record or by his deputy
that after diligent search no record or entry of a
specified tenor is found to exist in the records of
his office, accompanied by a certificate as above
provided, is admissible as evidence that the
records of his office contain no such record or
entry (Rule 132, Sec. 28).
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

j) How a judicial record is impeached

• Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:


(a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer;
(b) collusion between the parties; or
(c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to
the proceedings (Rule 132, Sec. 29.).
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

k) Proof of notarial documents

• Notarial documents 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 (Rule 132, Sec. 30).
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

l) How to explain alterations in a document

• A party may show that an alteration was:


1. made by another, without his concurrence;
2. was made with the consent of the parties affected by it or
was otherwise properly or innocent made; or
3. that the alteration did not change the meaning or
language of the instrument (Rule 132, Sec. 31).
AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF
DOCUMENTS

m) Documentary evidence in an unofficial


language
• Article XIV, Sec. 3 1935 Constitution – English and Spanish
are official languages.
• Article XV, Sec. 3(3), 1973 Constitution – English and
Filipino. (P.D. No. 155 – Spanish language shall continue to
be recognized as an official language while important
documents in government files are in the Spanish language
and not translated into Pilipino or English)
• Article XIV, Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution - the official languages
are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English, with
the regional languages as auxiliary official languages in the
region
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE

Rule 1, Section 6 of the Rules of Court states that


the “[r]ules shall be liberally construed in order
to promote their objective of securing a just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every
action and proceeding.”
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
•Clarification:
Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the
adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined
to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some
instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules,
this…was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to
violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation
and application of the rules applies only to proper cases and under
justifiable causes and circumstances.
While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is
equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance
with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy
administration of justice (Alamayari v. Pabale, G.R. No. 182924,
24 December 2008).
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
a) Proof beyond reasonable doubt

• Proof beyond reasonable doubt is that degree of


proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind.

• Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required in criminal


cases.

• Absolute certainty is not required, only moral


certainty.
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE

a) Proof beyond reasonable doubt


• N.B. An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, is not
a sufficient ground for conviction UNLESS corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti. (Rule 133, Sec. 3).
• Requisites for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for
conviction:
• There is more than 1 circumstance;
• The facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and
• The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (Rule
133, Sec. 4).
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE

b) Preponderance of evidence
• Preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases
• In determining preponderance of evidence, 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
testify;
• The probability or improbability of their testimony;
• Their interest or want of interest;
• Personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon
the trial;
• Number of witnesses (note preponderance is not necessarily
equivalent with the no. of witnesses).
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
c) Substantial evidence

Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence


which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify
a conclusion.

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.
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
d) Clear and convincing evidence

Evidence is clear and convincing if it produces in


the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction
as to allegations sought to be established. It is
intermediate, being more than preponderance, but
not to the extent of such certainty as required
beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases (Black’s
Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 227).
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
Power of the court to stop further evidence

The court may stop the introduction of further


testimony upon any particular point when the
evidence upon it is already so full that more
witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably
expected to be additionally persuasive. But this
power should be exercised with caution. (Rule 133,
Sec. 6)
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE

Evidence on motion
When a motion is based on facts not appearing of
record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or
depositions presented by the respective parties, but the
court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly
on oral testimony or depositions. (Rule 133, Sec. 7).
Examples of motions which require presentation of
evidence:
 Motion for bail;
 Application for TRO/injunction;
 Motion to dismiss.
2004 BAR EXAMS

Amendment to Conform to Evidence


Question:
In a complaint for a sum of money filed before the
MM RTC, plaintiff did not mention or even just hint
at any demand for payment made on defendant
before commencing suit. During the trial, plaintiff
duly offered Exh. "A" in evidence for the stated
purpose of proving the making of extrajudicial
demand on defendant to pay P500.000, the subject
of the suit.
2004 BAR EXAMS
Amendment to Conform to Evidence
Question:
xxx Exh. "A" was a letter of demand for defendant to
pay said sum of money within 10 days from receipt,
addressed to and served on defendant some two
months before suit was begun. Without objection from
defendant, the court admitted Exh. "A" in evidence.

Was the court's admission of Exh. "A" in evidence


erroneous or not? Reason. (5%)
2004 BAR EXAMS
Amendment to Conform to Evidence
Suggested Answer:
The court's admission of Exh. "A" in evidence is not
erroneous. It was admitted in evidence without
objection on the part of the defendant. It should be
treated as if it had been raised in the pleadings. The
complaint may be amended to conform to the
evidence, but if it is not so amended, it does not
affect the result of the trial on this issue. (Sec. 5 of
Rule 10).
2004 BAR EXAMS
Sworn Statement Without Assistance of a Counsel
Question:

Sgt. GR of WPD arrested two NPA suspects, Max


and Brix, both aged 22, in the act of robbing a
grocery in Ermita. As he handcuffed them he noted
a pistol tucked in Max's waist and a dagger hidden
under Brix's shirt, which he promptly confiscated.
2004 BAR EXAMS

Sworn Statement Without Assistance of a Counsel


Question:

At the police investigation room, Max and Brix orally


waived their right to counsel and right to remain silent.
Then under oath, they freely answered questions asked
by the police desk officer. Thereafter they signed their
sworn statements before the police captain, a lawyer.
Max admitted his part in the robbery, his possession of
a pistol and his ownership of the packet of shabu found
in his pocket.
2004 BAR EXAMS
Sworn Statement Without Assistance of a Counsel
Question:

xxx Brix admitted his role in the robbery and his


possession of a dagger. But they denied being NPA
hit men. In due course, proper charges were filed
by the City Prosecutor against both arrestees
before the MM RTC.
2004 BAR EXAMS

Sworn Statement Without Assistance of a Counsel

Question:

May the written statements signed and sworn to by


Max and Brix be admitted by the trial court as
evidence for the prosecution? Reason. (5%)
2004 BAR EXAMS
Sworn Statement Without Assistance of a Counsel
Suggested Answer:
No. The sworn written statements of Max and Brix may
not be admitted in evidence, because they were not
assisted by counsel. Even if the police captain before
whom they signed the statements was a lawyer, he was
not functioning as a lawyer, nor can he be considered
as an independent counsel. Waiver of the right to a
lawyer must be done in writing and in the presence of
independent counsel (People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA
455 11999]; People v. Espiritu, 302 SCRA 533 [1999]).
2005 BAR EXAMS
Private Document

Question:

May a private document be offered, and admitted in


evidence both as documentary evidence and as
object evidence? Explain.
2005 BAR EXAMS
Private Document
Answer:

Yes, it can be considered as both documentary and


object evidence. A private document may be offered
and admitted in evidence both as documentary
evidence and as object evidence. A document can also
be considered as an object for purposes of the case.
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses
of the court. (Sec. 1, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
2005 BAR EXAMS
Private Document
Answer:
xxx Documentary evidence consists of writings or any
material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expressions, offered
as proof of their contents. (Sec. 2, Rule 130, Rules of
Court) Hence, a private document may be presented as
object evidence in order to establish certain physical
evidence or characteristics that are visible on the paper
and writings that comprise the document.
2006 BAR EXAMS
Admission of Guilt During Custodial Investigation

Question:

What are the requirements in order that an


admission of guilt of an accused during a custodial
investigation be admitted in evidence? (2.5%)
2006 BAR EXAMS
Admission of Guilt During Custodial Investigation
Suggested Answer:

An admission of guilt during a custodial investigation is


a confession. To be admissible in evidence, the
requirements are: (1) the confession must be voluntary;
(2) the confession must be made with the assistance of
competent and independent counsel; (3) the confession
must be express; and (4) the confession must be in
writing (People v. Principe, 381 SCRA 642 [2002]).
2008 BAR EXAMS
Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases
Question:
Bembol was charged with rape. Bembol's father, Ramil,
approached Artemon, the victim's father, during the
preliminary investigation and offered P1 Million to
Artemon to settle the case. Artemon refused the offer.

a. During trial, the prosecution presented Artemon to


testify on Ramil's offer and thereby establish an implied
admission of guilt. Is Ramil's offer to settle admissible in
evidence? (3%)
2008 BAR EXAMS
Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases

Suggested Answer:

a. The offer of Artemon is not admissible in evidence


against Bembol as an implied admission of guilt. To be
admissible as an implied admission of guilt, the offer
must be “an offer of compromise by the accused” (Sec.
27, Rule 130, Rules of Court). The facts of the case do
not indicate that it was Bembol, the accused, who made
the offer.
2008 BAR EXAMS
Oral Confession
Question:

The mutilated cadaver of a woman was discovered


near a creek. Due to witnesses attesting that he
was the last person seen with the woman when she
was still alive, Carlito was arrested within five hours
after the discovery of the cadaver and brought to
the police station. The crime laboratory determined
that the woman had been raped.
2008 BAR EXAMS
Oral Confession
Question:
xxx While in police custody, Carlito broke down in the
presence of an assisting counsel and orally confessed
to the investigator that he had raped and killed the
woman, detailing the acts he had performed up to his
dumping of the body near the creek. He was genuinely
remorseful. During the trial, the State presented the
investigator to testify on the oral confession of Carlito. Is
the oral confession admissible as evidence of guilt?
(4%)
2008 BAR EXAMS
Oral Confession
Suggested Answer:

The oral confession is not admissible as evidence


of guilt. The confession is in the nature of an
extrajudicial confession before an investigator while
under custodial investigation. Hence, the statutory
provisions under R.A. No. 7438 (Sec. 2[d]) should
have been to be complied with.
2008 BAR EXAMS
Oral Confession
Suggested Answer:

xxx Under said law, any extrajudicial confession made


by a person arrested, detained, or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel. An oral
confession does not comply with the mandatory
provisions of the law. Under R.A. No. 7438, the
confession is inadmissible in evidence in any
proceeding (Sec. 2[d], R.A. No. 7438).
2009 BAR EXAMS
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Question:

Arrested in a buy-bust operation, Edmond was


brought to the police station where he was informed
of his constitutional rights. During the investigation,
Edmond refused to give any statement. However,
the arresting officer asked Edmond to acknowledge
in writing that six (6) sachets of "shabu" were
confiscated from him.
2009 BAR EXAMS
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Question:
xxx Edmond consented and also signed a receipt for
the amount of P3,000.00, allegedly representing the
"purchase price of the shabu." At the trial, the arresting
officer testified and identified the documents executed
and signed by Edmond. Edmond's lawyer did not object
to the testimony. After the presentation of the
testimonial evidence, the prosecutor made a formal
offer of evidence which included the documents signed
by Edmond.
2009 BAR EXAMS
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Question:

xxx Edmond's lawyer objected to the admissibility


of the documents for being the "fruit of the poisoned
tree." Resolve the objection with reasons. (3%)
2009 BAR EXAMS
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Suggested Answer:

The objection to the admissibility of the documents,


which the arresting officer asked Edmond to sign
without the benefit of counsel, is well taken. Said
documents having been signed by the accused while
under custodial investigation, constitute an “admission”
without the benefit of counsel, that the shabu came
from him and that the P3,000.00 was received by him
pursuant to the illegal selling of the drugs.
2009 BAR EXAMS
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Suggested Answer:

xxx Thus, it was obtained by the arresting officer in


clear violation of Sec. 12(3), Art. III of the 1987
Constitution, particularly the right to be assisted by
counsel during custodial investigation.
Moreover, the objection to the admissibility of the
evidence was timely made, i.e., when the same is
formally offered.
2010 BAR EXAMS
Objections; Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Question:
Dominique was accused of committing a violation of the
Human Security Act. He was detained incommunicado,
deprived of sleep, and subjected to water torture. He
later allegedly confessed his guilt via an affidavit.

After trial, he was acquitted on the ground that his


confession was obtained through torture, hence,
inadmissible as evidence.
2010 BAR EXAMS
Objections; Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Question:

In a subsequent criminal case for torture against those


who deprived him of sleep and subjected him to water
torture, Dominique was asked to testify and to, among
other things, identify his above-said affidavit of
confession. As he was about to identify the affidavit, the
defense counsel objected on the ground that the
affidavit is a fruit of a poisonous tree. Can the objection
be sustained? Explain. (3%)
2010 BAR EXAMS
Objections; Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Suggested Answer:
No, the objection may not be sustained on the ground
stated, because the affiant was only to identify the
affidavit which is not yet being offered in evidence.

The doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree can only


be invoked by Dominique as his defense in the crime of
Violation of Human Security Act filed against him but
not by the accused in a torture case filed by him.
2010 BAR EXAMS
Objections; Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Suggested Answer:

In the instant case, the presentation of the affidavit


cannot be objected to by the defense counsel on
the ground that it is a fruit of the poisonous tree
because the same is used in Dominique’s favor.
2011 BAR EXAMS
Proof of Due Execution of Genuineness

Question:

Bearing in mind the distinction between private and


public document, which of the following is
admissible in evidence without further proof of due
execution or genuineness?
2011 BAR EXAMS
Proof of Due Execution of Genuineness
Question:
(A) Baptismal certificates.
(B) Official record of the Philippine Embassy in Singapore
certified by the Vice- Consul with official seal.
(C) Documents acknowledged before a Notary Public in
Hong Kong.
(D) Unblemished receipt dated December 20, 1985 signed
by the promissee, showing payment of a loan, found among
the well-kept file of the promissor.
2011 BAR EXAMS
Evidence of Guilt of a Past Crime

Question:

Ben testified that Jaime, charged with robbery, has


committed bag-snatching three times on the same
street in the last six months. Can the court admit
this testimony as evidence against Jaime?
2011 BAR EXAMS

Evidence of Guilt of a Past Crime


Question: xxx
(A) No, since there is no showing that Ben witnessed the
past three robberies.
(B) Yes, as evidence of his past propensity for committing
robbery.
(C) Yes, as evidence of a pattern of criminal behavior
proving his guilt of the present offense.
(D) No, since evidence of guilt of a past crime is not
evidence of guilt of a present crime.
TESTIMONIAL
EVIDENCE
(WITNESS - ASKED IN 1998, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2013)
QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS

• All persons who can perceive, and perceiving,


can make their known perception to others, may
be witnesses (Rule 130, Sec. 20).

• Religious or political belief, interest in the


outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be
ground for disqualification (Rule 130, Sec. 20).
COMPETENCY VERSUS CREDIBILITY OF A
WITNESS

• Competency: 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.

• Credibility: Worthiness of belief; that quality in a witness


which renders his evidence worthy of belief. After the
competence of a witness is allowed, the consideration
of his credibility arises.
COMPETENCY VERSUS CREDIBILITY OF A
WITNESS

• A competent witness is one who is not excluded by law or the


Rules of Court from being a witness. Competency is
determined by the prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence.

• A credible witness is one who being competent to give


evidence, is worthy of belief (Black’s Law Dictionary).

• It is well-settled that the determination of the credibility of the


witnesses is correctly assigned to the trial court, which is in
the best position to observe the demeanor and bodily
movements of all the witnesses (People v. Banzuela, G.R.
No. 202060, 11 December 2013).
HEARSAY
(ASKED IN 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
2007, 2009, 2010, AND 2012)
2. HEARSAY RULE
(ASKED IN 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, AND 2012)

a) Meaning of hearsay

• Hearsay evidence – any evidence, whether oral


or documentary, whose probative value is based
not on personal knowledge of the witness but on
the knowledge of some other person not on the
witness stand.
HEARSAY RULE
a) Meaning of hearsay
• If a party does not object, the hearsay evidence is admissible.
Illustration: The repeated failure of the party to cross-examine
the witness is an implied waiver of such right and the
testimony of the said witness who died thereafter should not
be excluded from the record (Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas
ng Manggagawang Pilipino, G.R. No. L-38964, 31 January
31).
• But even if hearsay evidence not objected to is admissible, it
has no probative value. Hearsay evidence whether objected
to or not has no probative value (People v. Parungao, G.R.
No. 125812, 28 November 1996).
HEARSAY RULE
a) Meaning of hearsay

•Two concepts of hearsay evidence:

(1) Second hand information (not derived from personal


knowledge of witness); and

(2) Testimony by a witness derived from his personal


knowledge but the adverse party is not given opportunity
to cross-examine.
HEARSAY RULE
a) Meaning of hearsay

• Principle of Independently Relevant Statements


The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds
that conversations communicated to a witness by a third
person may be admitted as proof that, regardless of their truth
or falsity, they were actually made. Evidence as to the making
of such statements is not secondary but primary, for in itself it
(a) constitutes a fact in issue or (b) is circumstantially relevant
to the existence of such fact (Republic v. Heirs of Alejega, G.R.
No. 146030, 3 December 2002).
HEARSAY RULE
b) Reason for exclusion of hearsay evidence

• The real basis for the exclusion of hearsay


evidence lies in the fact that hearsay testimony is
not subject to the tests which can ordinarily be
applied for the ascertainment of the truth of
testimony, since the declarant is not present and
available for cross-examination (Mollaneda v.
Umacob, G.R. No. 140128, 6 June 2001).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
i. Dying declaration
• Dying declaration is an ante mortem statement or statement in
articulo mortis.
• Requisites:
(1) That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that
fact;
(2) That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding
circumstances of such death;
(3) That the declaration relates to facts which the victim is
competent to testify to;
(4) That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant’s
death is the subject of the inquiry (People v. Serenas, G.R. No.
188124, 29 June 2010; People v. Umapas, G.R. No. 215742, 22
March 2010).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
i. Dying declaration

• Dying declaration has weight even if declarant did


not die immediately after his declaration.

It is the belief of impending death and not the rapid


succession of death that renders the dying declaration
admissible (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 111149, 5
September 1997)
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
i. Dying declaration

• Victim need not state that he has lost all hope of


recovery.

It is sufficient that circumstances are such as to inevitably


lead to the conclusion that at the time the declaration was made,
the declarant would not expect to survive the injury from which he
actually died. The degree and seriousness of the wounds and the
fact that death supervened thereafter constitute substantial
evidence of the victim's consciousness of his impending death
(People v. Tanaman, et al., G.R. No. 71768, 28 July 1987).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
i. Dying declaration

• Mere gesture of dying victim inconclusive.

The gesture of a dying woman in pointing to a


direction, when asked for the identity of her assailant, is
too vague to be given such probative value in determining
the culpability of the accused (People v. Ola, G.R. No. L-
47147, 3 July 1987).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
ii. Declaration against interest
•Requisites:
(1) The declaration is made by:
(i) a person deceased; or
(ii) a person who is unable to testify [i.e. in foreign country or
with physical/mental impairments];
(2) The declaration is against the interest of the declarant;
(3) 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 (Rule 130, Sec. 38; Fuentes v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 111692, 9 February 1996).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
ii. Declaration against interest

• Theory:
The theory under which declarations against interest are
received in evidence notwithstanding they are hearsay is that
the necessity of the occasion renders the reception of such
evidence advisable and, further that the reliability of such
declaration asserts facts which are against his own
pecuniary or moral interest (Parel v. Prudencio, G.R. No.
146556, 19 April 2006).
HEARSAY RULE
ADMISSIONS DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST

It is made by a party to a It is made by a person who is


litigation or by one in privity with or neither a party nor in privity with a party
identified in legal interest with such to the suit (Lazaro v. Agustin, G.R. No.
party (Unchuan v. Lozada, G.R. No. 152364, 15 April 2010).
172671, 16 April 2009, 585 SCRA
421, 435).
It is admissible whether or not It is admissible only when the
the declarant is available as a declarant is unavailable as a witness.
witness. (Unchuan v. Lozada, supra) (Lazaro v. Agustin, supra).
It is not necessarily against the The declaration must necessarily
interest of the admitter. be against declarant’s interest.
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
iii. Act or declaration about pedigree
• Requisites:
(1) The actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify;
(2) The act or declaration is made by the person related to the
subject by birth or marriage;
(3) The relationship between the declarant or the actor and the
subject is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration;
(4) The act or declaration was made prior to the controversy.
(Rule 130, Sec. 39; Nepomuceno v. Lopez, G.R. No. 181258,
18 March 2010).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
iv. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
• Requisites:
(1) Witness testifying as to reputation or tradition must be a
member, by consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the
subject;
(2) Such tradition or reputation must have existed in that family
ante litem motam. (Rule 130, Sec. 40; People v. Soriano, G.R.
No. 154278, 27 December 2002).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
v. Common reputation
• Common reputation refers to general reputation; definite
opinion of the community in which the fact to be proved is
known or exists.
• Requisites.
(1) The subject of inquiry must be facts of public or general interest
more than 30 years old, respecting marriage or moral character;
(2) The evidence must refer to facts ante litem motam;
(3) The facts may be established by:
Testimonial evidence of competent witness;
Monuments and inscription in public places;
Documents containing statements of reputation.
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
vi. Part of the Res Gestae
• Res gestae is a Latin phrase which literally means
"things done.“ (Capila v. People, G.R. No. 146161, 17
July 2006).

• Two Types of Res Gestae:


1. Spontaneous statements; and
2. Contemporaneous statements or verbal acts (Rule 130,
Sec. 42)
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
vi. Part of the Res Gestae
• Requisites of the First Type (Spontaneous Statements):
The rule in res gestae applies when the declarant himself
did not testify and the testimony of the witness who heard the
declarant complies with the following requisites:
(1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
(2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive
or devise; and
(3) the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its
immediately attending circumstances (prior or subsequent) (Rule 130,
Sec. 42; People v. Calinawan, G.R. No. 226145, 13 February 2017).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
vi. Part of the Res Gestae
• Requisites of the Second Type (Verbal Acts):
(1) The principal act to be characterized must be equivocal;
(2) The equivocal act must be relevant to the issue;
(3) The verbal act must be contemporaneous with the
equivocal act;
(4) The verbal act must give legal significance to the
equivocal act (Talidano v. Falcom Maritime & Allied Service,
Inc. G.R. No. 172031, 14 July 2008).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
vii. Entries in the course of business
• Requisites:
(1) The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to
testify;
(2) The entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to
which they refer;
(3) The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the
entries;
(4) The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the
performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious;
(5) The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of
business or duty (Rule 130, Sec. 43; Jose, Jr. v Michaelmar Phils.,
Inc., et al., G.R. No. 169606, 27 November 2009).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
vii. Entries in the course of business
• Theory for admissibility
Entries in the course of business are accorded unusual
reliability because their regularity and continuity are
calculated to discipline record keepers in the habit of
precision. If the entries are financial, the records are routinely
balanced and audited. In actual experience, the whole of the
business world function in reliance of such kind of records
(LBP v. Monet’s Export and Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No.
184971, 19 April 2010).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
viii. Entries in official records
• Requisites:
(1) Entries were made by: (i) a public officer in the
performance of his duties; or (ii) by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law;
(2) The entrant had personal knowledge of the facts stated by
him or such facts were acquired by him from reports made by
persons under a legal duty to submit the same; and
(3) Such entries were duly entered in a regular manner in the
official records (Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, G.R. No.
162243, 3 December 2009).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
viii. Entries in official records
• Entrant need not be presented.
The presentation of the records themselves would,
therefore, have been admissible as an exception to the
hearsay rule even if the public officer/s who prepared them
was/were not presented in court, provided the above
requisites could be adequately proven (Alvarez v. PICOP
Resources, supra; Africa v. Caltex, 123 Phil. 272).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
viii. Entries in official records
• Police reports of vehicular accidents.
The presentation of the police report itself is admissible as
an exception to the hearsay rule even if the police investigator
who prepared it was not presented in court, as long as the
requisites under Rule 130, Sec. 44 could be adequately
proved (Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Alberto, G.R. No.
194320, 1 February 2012).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
ix. Commercial lists and the like
• Requisites:
A document is a commercial list if:
(1) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged
in an occupation;
(2) such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or
other published compilation;
(3) said compilation is published for the use of persons
engaged in that occupation, and
(4) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the
same occupation (Rule 130, Sec. 45; PNOC Shipping v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107518, 8 October 1998).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
x. Learned treaties
• Requisites:
(1) The court takes judicial notice of published treatise,
periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science or
art; or
(2) 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 an expert in the
subject (Rule 130, Sec. 46).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
xi. Testimony or deposition at a former trial
• Requisites:
(1) Witness is dead or unable to testify;
(2) His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same
parties or those representing the same interests;
(3) The former case involved the same subject as that in the
present case, although on different causes of action;
(4) The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is
the same issue involved in the present case; and
(5) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine
the witness in the former case.
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
xi. Testimony or deposition at a former trial
• Meaning of “unable to testify”
The phrase "unable to testify" refers to a physical inability
to appear at the witness stand and to give a testimony.
Hence notwithstanding the deletion of the phrase "out of the
Philippines," which previously appeared in Section 47, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court, absence from jurisdiction may still
constitute inability to testify under the same rule (Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375, 16 December 2011).
HEARSAY RULE
c) Exceptions to the hearsay rule
xi. Testimony or deposition at a former trial
• Meaning of “same parties.”
To render the testimony of a witness admissible at a later
trial or action, the parties to the first proceeding must be the
same as the parties to the later proceeding. Physical identity,
however, is not required; substantial identity or identity of
interests suffices, as where the subsequent proceeding is
between persons who represent the parties to the prior
proceeding by privity in law, in blood, or in estate. The term
"privity" denotes mutual or successive relationships to the
same rights of property (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra).
OPINION RULE

• General rule
The opinion of a witness is NOT admissible (Rule 130, Sec.
48).

• Exceptions
(1) Opinion of expert witness
(2) Opinion of ordinary witness
OPINION RULE
a) Opinion of expert witness

• The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring


special knowledge, skill, experience or
training which he is shown to possess, may be
received in evidence. (Rule 130, Sec. 48).
OPINION RULE
a) Opinion of expert witness
• Courts are not bound by expert’s testimony.
Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states that the
opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience or training, which he is shown to possess, may be received
in evidence. The use of the word "may" signifies that the use of
opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on
the part of the courts. Allowing the testimony does not mean, too,
that courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness. The
testimony of an expert witness must be construed to have been
presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to
assist the court in the determination of the issue before it, and is for
the court to adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation of the
attendant facts and the applicable law (Tabao v. People, G.R. No.
187246, 20 July 2011).
OPINION RULE
b) Opinion of ordinary witness
•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; (c) the mental sanity of
a person with whom he is sufficiently acquainted;
and (d) his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
condition or appearance of a person (Rule 130, Sec.
48).
CHARACTER EVIDENCE

• General rule:
Character evidence is not admissible (Rule
130, Sec. 51).
Exceptions:

a) Criminal cases

• Accused – may prove his good moral character pertinent to


the moral trait in the offense charge.
• Prosecution – may present character evidence pertaining to
accused’s bad moral character pertinent to the moral trait
involved in the offense charged only in rebuttal.
• Offended party - 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
Exceptions:

b) 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.
• Evidence of the good character of a witness is
not admissible until such character has been
impeached (Rule 130, Sec. 51).
• Rape Shield Rule

In prosecutions for rape, evidence of


complainant's past sexual conduct, opinion thereof
or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless,
and only to the extent that the court finds, that such
evidence is material and relevant to the case (R.A.
No. 8505, Sec. 6).
2003 BAR EXAMS
HEARSAY RULE
Independently Relevant Statement

Question:

X was charged with robbery. On the strength of a warrant of


arrest issued by the court, X was arrested by police
operatives. They seized from his person a handgun. A charge
for illegal possession of firearm was also filed against him. In
a press conference called by the police, X admitted that he
had robbed the victim of jewelry valued at P500,000.00.
2003 BAR EXAMS
HEARSAY RULE
Independently Relevant Statement

Question (continued):
The robbery and illegal possession of firearm cases were tried
jointly. The prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper
clipping of the report of the reporter who was present during the
press conference stating that X admitted the robbery. It likewise
presented a certification of the PNP Firearms and Explosive Office
attesting that the accused had no license to carry any firearm. The
certifying officer, however, was not presented as a witness. Both
pieces of evidence were objected to by the defense.
2003 BAR EXAMS
HEARSAY RULE
Independently Relevant Statement

Question:

a) Is the newspaper clipping admissible in evidence against


X?
b) Is the certification of the PNP Firearm and Explosive Office
without the certifying officer testifying on it admissible in
evidence against X?
2003 BAR EXAMS
HEARSAY RULE
Independently Relevant Statement
Suggested Answers:

Yes, the newspaper clipping is admissible in evidence against X.


Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, the hearsay rule
does not apply and the statement may be shown where the fact
that it is made is relevant. 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 fact (Gotesco Investment Corporation
vs. Chatto, 210 SCRA 18 [1992]).
2003 BAR EXAMS
HEARSAY RULE
Independently Relevant Statement
Suggested Answers:

Yes, the certification is admissible in evidence against X


because a written statement signed by an officer having the
custody of an official record or by his deputy that after
diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found
to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a
certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that
the records of his office contain no such record or entry (Sec.
28 of Rule 132).
2005 BAR EXAMS
Exception to Hearsay Rule; Res Gestae; Independently
Relevant Statement
Question:
Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, tied her to a chair
and robbed her of assorted pieces of jewelry and money.
Dencio then brought Candida, Marcela's maid, to a bedroom
where he raped her. Marcela could hear Candida crying and
pleading: "Huwag! Maawa ka sa akin!" After raping Candida,
Dencio fled from the house with the loot. Candida then untied
Marcela and rushed to the police station about a kilometer
away and told Police Officer Roberto Maawa that Dencio had
barged into the house of Marcela, tied the latter to a chair and
robbed her of her jewelry and money.
2005 BAR EXAMS
Exception to Hearsay Rule; Res Gestae; Independently
Relevant Statement
Question (continued):

Candida also related to the police officer that despite her


pleas, Dencio had raped her. The policeman noticed that
Candida was hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Dencio
was charged with robbery with rape. During the trial,
Candida can no longer be located. (8%)
2005 BAR EXAMS
Exception to Hearsay Rule; Res Gestae; Independently
Relevant Statement
Question:

If the prosecution presents Police Officer Roberto Maawa to


testify on what Candida had told him, would such testimony of
the policeman be hearsay? Explain.

If the police officer will testify that he noticed Candida to be


hysterical and on the verge of collapse, would such testimony
be considered as opinion, hence, inadmissible? Explain.
2005 BAR EXAMS
Exception to Hearsay Rule; Res Gestae; Independently
Relevant Statement

Suggested Answers:

No. The testimony of the policeman is not hearsay. It is part of


the res gestae. It is also an independently relevant statement.
The police officer testified of his own personal knowledge, not
to the truth of Candida's statement, i.e., that she told him,
despite her pleas, Dencio had raped her. He did not testify to
the truth of his statement (People v. Gaddi, G.R. No. 74065,
27 February 1989).
2005 BAR EXAMS
Exception to Hearsay Rule; Res Gestae; Independently
Relevant Statement

Suggested Answers:

No, it cannot be considered as opinion, because he was


testifying on what he actually observed. A witness may testify
on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or
appearance of a person. (Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 50,
last par.).
2007 BAR EXAMS
Hearsay Rule; Res Gestae; Dying Declaration;
Admission Against Interest
Questions:

• What is the hearsay rule? (5%)


• In relation to the hearsay rule, what do the following rules
of evidence have in common? (5%)
• The rule on statements that are part of the res gestae;
• The rule on dying declarations;
• The rule on admissions against interest.
2007 BAR EXAMS
Hearsay Rule; Res Gestae; Dying Declaration;
Admission Against Interest
Suggested Answers:

The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence to the effect that a


witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his
own knowledge or derived from his own perceptions, except
as otherwise provided in the Rules of Court (Rule 130, Sec.
36, Rules of Court).
2007 BAR EXAMS
Hearsay Rule; Res Gestae; Dying Declaration; Admission
Against Interest
Suggested Answers:

The rules on the evidence specified in the question asked,


have in common the following:

The evidence although hearsay, are allowed by the Rules as


exceptions to the hearsay rule;
2007 BAR EXAMS
Hearsay Rule; Res Gestae; Dying Declaration; Admission
Against Interest
Suggested Answers:

The facts involved are admissible in evidence or reasons of


necessity and trustworthiness; and

The witness is testifying on acts which are not of his own


knowledge or derived from his own perception.
2011 BAR EXAMS
CHARACTER EVIDENCE - Admissibility
Question: Character evidence is admissible
(A) in criminal cases, the accused may prove his good moral
character if pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged.
(B) in criminal cases, the prosecution may prove the bad
moral character of the accused to prove his criminal
predisposition.
(C) in criminal cases, the bad moral character of the offended
party may not be proved.
(D) when it is evidence of the good character of a witness
even prior to impeachment.
2011 BAR EXAMS
Excited Statement
Question:
To prove that Susan stabbed her husband Elmer, Rico testified
that he heard Leon running down the street, shouting excitedly,
"Sinasaksak daw ni Susan ang asawa niya! (I heard that
Susan is stabbing her husband!)" Is Leon's statement as
narrated by Rico admissible?
(A) No, since the startling event had passed.
(B) Yes, as part of the res gestae.
(C) No, since the excited statement is itself hearsay.
(D) Yes, as an independently relevant statement.
2012 BAR EXAMS
Exception to Hearsay Rule
Question:
When caught, X readily admitted to the Forestry Ranger that
he cut the trees. Such a statement may be admitted and is not
necessarily hearsay because:

(A) it is a judicial admission of guilt.


(B) it shows the statement was true.
(C) it will form part of the circumstantial evidence to convict.
(D) it proves that such a statement was made.
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

a) By reason of mental capacity or immaturity


• The following persons cannot be witnesses:

(a) 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;
(b) 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 130,
Sec. 21)
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

a) By reason of mental capacity or immaturity


• Minority, alone, is not a sufficient ground for disqualification.
Leeway should be given to witnesses who are minors,
especially when they are relating past incidents of abuse
(People v. Dominguez, G.R. No. 191065, 13 June 2011).
Thus, a child may still be a witness as long as the following
are shown:
(a) capacity of observation;
(b) capacity of recollection; and
(c) capacity of communication (People v. Mendoza, G.R.
No. 113791, 22 February 1996, 254 SCRA 18).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

a) By reason of mental capacity or immaturity


• Mental retardation per se does not affect credibility
(People v. Rosales, G.R. No. 197537, 24 July 2013).
• Mental unsoundness of the witness at the time of the
event testified to affects only his or her credibility. As
long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs
and gives sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions
propounded, she is a competent witness even if she is a
mental retardate (People v. Maceda, G.R. No. 138805, 28
February 2001, 353 SCRA 228).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

b) By reason of marriage

• General Rule: During their marriage, spouses


may not testify for or against the other without the
consent of the affected spouse. (Rule 130, Sec.
22).
• Exceptions:
• 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.
(Rule 130, Sec. 22).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

b) By reason of marriage
Requisites for spousal immunity:
1. Valid marriage;
2. Other spouse is party to the action.
Waiver of spousal immunity:
• The objection to the competency of the spouse must be
made when he or she is first offered as a witness.
Failure to make a timely objection is tantamount to
waiver of spousal immunity (People v. Pansensoy, G.R.
No. 140634. 12 September 2002).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

b) By reason of marriage
Spousal immunity in cases where a spouse is
jointly charged with other accused:
• The testimony of a wife of an accused, when
timely objected to, is inadmissible against the
latter. However, the same may be admitted as
against other persons jointly charged in said
case. (People v. Quidato, Jr. G.R. No. 140634, 12
September 2002).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

b) By reason of marriage
Estranged Spouses
•The disqualification does not apply in case of estranged spouses.
Where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is
no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may
be disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility
fails. In such a case, identity of interests disappears and the
consequent danger of perjury based on that identity is non-existent.
Likewise, in such a situation, the security and confidences of private
life, which the law aims at protecting, will be nothing but ideals, which
through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home
(Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, 14 October 2005).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

c) By reason of death or insanity of adverse


party
(Dead Man’s Statute or Survivor’s Disqualification Rule)
• Cases where applicable:
(i) cases against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person upon a claim or demand
against the estate of a deceased person; or
(ii) against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or
demand against the estate of such person of unsound mind
(Rule 130, Sec. 23).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

c) By reason of death or insanity of adverse


party
• To Whom or When not applicable:
i. Ordinary witnesses, who are not the plaintiff, assignor of
plaintiff, or person in whose behalf the case is prosecuted.
(Bajenting v. Bañez, G.R. No. 166190, 20 September 2006).
ii. Officers and/or stockholders of a corporation are not
disqualified from testifying, for or against a corporation
which is a party to an action upon a claim or demand
against the estate of a deceased person, as to any matter of
fact occurring before the death of such deceased person.
(Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf, G.R. No. L-2016, 23 August
1949).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

c) By reason of death or insanity of adverse


party
•To Whom or When not applicable:
(iii)When there is an imputation of fraud against the
deceased which had been established beyond all doubt,
the plaintiff is not barred from testifying to such fraud. The
Dead Man’s Statute is not designed to shield wrongdoers
and to render a plaintiff incompetent to testify to fraudulent
transactions of the deceased (Ong Chua v. Carr, 53 Phil.
975; Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho, 96 Phil. 622).
(iv) When the plaintiff is the executor, administrator or legal
representative of the deceased, or the person of unsound
mind, the defendant or defendants are free to testify against
the plaintiff (Tongco v. Vianzon, 50 Phil. 698).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

c) By reason of death or insanity of adverse


party
•To Whom or When not applicable:
(v) When the survivor's testimony refers to a negative fact.
(Mendezona v. Vda. de Goitia, 54 Phil. 557).
(vi) When the survivor's testimony is favorable to the deceased (Icard
v. Marasigan, 71 Phil. 419).
(vii) Testimony on transactions with agent of deceased or incompetent
party (Goni, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al., 144 SCRA 231).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

c) By reason of death or insanity of adverse


party
•How protection of the dead man’s statute is waived:
(i) By not objecting to plaintiff's testimony on prohibited matters
(Marella v. Reyes, 12 Phil. 1).
(ii) By cross-examining the plaintiff on prohibited matters.
(Tongco v. Vianzon, 50 Phil. 698).
(iii) By calling witnesses to testify on prohibited matters. (Arroyo
v. Azur, 76 Phil. 493).
(iv) When the plaintiff's deposition is taken by the representative
of the estate or when counsel for the representative cross-
examined the plaintiff as to matters occurring during the
deceased's lifetime (Goni, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al.,
144 SCRA 231).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

Dead Man’s Statute Marital Disqualification Rule


Not completely disqualified Complete and absolute
but is only prohibited from disqualification.
testifying on the matters
therein specified.
Applies only to a civil case or Applies to a civil or criminal
special proceeding over the case, subject to the two
estate of the deceased or exceptions provided.
insane person.
PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION
(ASKED IN 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006, AND 2010)
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


• (a) Husband and wife (Marital Privilege Rule)
• 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.
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


• (a) Husband and wife (Marital Privilege Rule)
• Applicability
 Scope of protection extends during or after the
marriage. (Rule 130, Sec. 24 [a]).
 Since the confidential nature of the communication is
the basis of the privilege, the same cannot be invoked
where it was not intended to be kept in confidence by
the spouse who received the same, as in the case of a
dying declaration of the husband to his wife as to who
was his assailant.
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


• (a) Husband and wife (Marital Privilege Rule)
• Waiver of protection:
(1) Failure to object to presentation; or
(2) Through any conduct that may be construed as implied
consent (Lacurom v. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921, 10 March 2006).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

Spousal Immunity Rule Marital Privilege Rule


Can be invoked only if one of Can be claimed whether
the spouses is a party to the or not the spouse is a
action. party to the action.
Applies only if marriage is Can be claimed even
existing at the time the after the marriage had
testimony is offered. been dissolved.
Constitutes a total prohibition Applies only to
against any testimony for or confidential
against the spouse of the communications between
witness. the spouses.
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(b) Attorney-Client Privilege Rule
• 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.
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(b) Attorney-Client Privilege Rule
• Requisites:
(1) Relationship of lawyer and client;
(2) Privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential
communication between them in the course of, or with the
view of professional employment;
(3) Client has not given his consent to the disclosure of the
communication. (Rule 130, Sec. 24[b]; Disini v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564, 22 June 2010).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(b) Attorney-Client Privilege Rule
• Persons covered:
(1) The attorney;
(2) The 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 (Rule 130, Sec. 24[b]).
• Waiver of protection:
The client may waive the protection of the Attorney-Client
Privilege Rule. If the client waives the privilege, even his
attorney cannot invoke it.
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(b) Attorney-Client Privilege Rule
• The Regala Doctrine
• General rule: A lawyer may NOT invoke the privilege
and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.
• Exceptions: (1) When a strong probability exists that
revealing the name would implicate that person in the
very same activity for which he sought the lawyer’s
advice; (2) When disclosure would open the client to
liability; (3) When the name would furnish the only link
that would form the chain of testimony necessary to
convict (Regala v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938, 20
September 1996).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(c) Physician-Patient Privilege
• 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 capacity, and which
would blacken the reputation of the patient.
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(c) Physician-Patient Privilege
• Requisites:
(1) The physician is authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
obstetrics;
(2) The information was acquired or the advice or treatment was
given by him in his professional capacity for the purpose of
treating and curing the patient
(3) The information, advice or treatment, if revealed, would
blacken the reputation of the patient;
(4) The privilege is invoked in a civil case whether the patient is a
party thereto or not (Rule 130, Sec. 24 [c]).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(c) Physician-Patient Privilege
• Meaning of “professional capacity”
• The physician may be considered to be acting in his
professional capacity when he attends to the patient for
curative, preventive, or palliative treatment. Thus, only
disclosures which would have been made to the physician to
enable him to "safely and efficaciously to treat his patient"
are covered by the privilege. (Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 91114, 25 September 1992).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(c) Physician-Patient Privilege
• Waiver of protection
• This privilege belongs to the patient, so that it is only he that can
claim or waive it. It is waivable expressly or impliedly (See Penn.
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind. 92).
• Example: Under Rule 28, the court may order a party to submit to
a physical or mental examination, so long as the mental or
physical condition is in dispute. The party examined may request
a report of the examination. By doing so, he waives any privilege
he may have in that action regarding the testimony of every other
person who has examined him in respect of the same examination
(Rule 28, Sec. 4).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(c) Physician-Patient Privilege

• Information elicited during consultation with a physician


in the presence of third parties removes such information
from the mantle of the privilege (Lim v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 91114, 25 September 1992).

• What is protected is the tenor of the consultation. The


number of times a patient consulted with his doctor is not
privileged. (Lim v. Court of Appeals, supra).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(d) Minister/Priest – Penitent Privilege

• 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.
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(e) State Secrets Rule
• 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.
• Public interest is paramount. The rule that a public officer
cannot be examined as to communications made to him in
official confidence does not apply when there is nothing to
show that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure
in question (Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board, 142 SCRA
523).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(f) Parental and Filial Privilege Rule
• No person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other
direct descendants (Rule 130, Sec. 25).
• No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case,
to testify against his parents and grandparents,
except when such testimony is indispensable in a
crime against the descendant or by one parent
against the other (Family Code, Article 215).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(g) Newsman’s Privilege
• The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any
newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation
cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news
report or information appearing in said publication which
was related in confidence to him, unless the court or a
House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation
is demanded by the security of the State (See R.A. No. 53,
as amended by R.A. No. 1477, the “Shield Law”).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(h) Privilege under the Labor Code

• All information and statements made at conciliation


proceedings shall be treated as privileged
communications and shall not be used as evidence
in the NLRC, and conciliators and similar officials
shall not testify in any court or body regarding any
matter taken up at the conciliation proceedings
conducted by them (Labor Code, Art. 233).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(i) Privilege under Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) laws
• Mediation
• Information obtained through mediation shall be privileged
and confidential (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[a]).
• A party, a mediator, or a nonparty participant may refuse to
disclose and may prevent any other person from disclosing a
mediation communication (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[b]).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(i) Privilege under Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) laws
• Mediation
• Confidential information obtained during mediation shall
not be subject to discovery and shall be inadmissible in
any adversarial proceeding, whether judicial or quasi-
judicial. However, evidence or information that is otherwise
admissible or subject to discovery does not become
inadmissible or protected from discovery solely by reason of
its use in a mediation (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[b]).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(i) Privilege under Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) laws
• Mediation
• In such an adversarial proceeding, the following persons involved
or previously involved in a mediation may not be compelled to
disclose confidential information obtained during mediation: (1) the
parties to the dispute; (2) the mediator; (3) the counsel for the
parties; (4) the nonparty participants; (5) any persons hired or
engaged in connection with the mediation as secretary,
stenographer, clerk or assistant; and (6) any other person who
obtains or possesses confidential information by reason of his/her
profession (R.A. No. 9285, Sec. 9[c]).
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(i) Privilege under Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) laws
• Arbitration
• The arbitration proceedings, including the records, evidence
and the arbitral award, shall be considered confidential and
shall not be published except (1) with the consent of the
parties, or (2) for the limited purpose of disclosing to the
court of relevant documents in cases where resort to the
court is allowed herein.
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES

d) By reason of privileged communications


(i) Privilege under Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) laws
• Arbitration
• Provided, however, that the court in which the action or the
appeal is pending may issue a protective order to prevent or
prohibit disclosure of documents or information containing
secret processes, developments, research and other
information where it is shown that the applicant shall be
materially prejudiced by an authorized disclosure thereof (R.A.
No. 9285, Sec. 23).
2004 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule
Question:
XYZ, an alien, was criminally charged of promoting and
facilitating child prostitution and other sexual abuses under
Rep. Act No. 7610. The principal witness against him was
his Filipina wife, ABC. Earlier, she had complained that
XYZ's hotel was being used as a center for sex tourism and
child trafficking.
2004 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule
Question:

The defense counsel for XYZ objected to the


testimony of ABC at the trial of the child
prostitution case and the introduction of the
affidavits she executed against her husband as a
violation of spousal confidentiality and marital
privilege rule.
2004 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule
Question:
xxx

It turned out that DEF, the minor daughter of ABC by her first
husband who was a Filipino, was molested by XYZ earlier.
Thus, ABC had filed for legal separation from XYZ since last
year. May the court admit the testimony and affidavits of the
wife, ABC, against her husband, XYZ, in the criminal case
involving child prostitution? Reason. (5%)
2004 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule
Suggested Answer:
Yes. The court may admit the testimony and
affidavits of the wife against her husband in the
criminal case where it involves child prostitution of
the wife's daughter. It is not covered by the marital
privilege rule. One exception thereof is where the
crime is committed by one against the other or the
latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (Sec. 22,
Rule 130).
2004 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule
Suggested Answer:

A crime by the husband against the


daughter is a crime against the wife and
directly attacks or vitally impairs the
conjugal relation (Ordono v. Daquigan, 62
SCRA 270 [1975]).
2006 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule
Question:

Leticia was estranged from her husband Paul for


more than a year due to his suspicion that she was
having an affair with Manuel their neighbor. She was
temporarily living with her sister in Pasig City. For
unknown reasons, the house of Leticia's sister was
burned, killing the latter. Leticia survived. She saw
her husband in the vicinity during the incident.
2006 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule
Question:
xxx

Later he was charged with arson in an Information filed


with the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City. During the trial,
the prosecutor called Leticia to the witness stand and
offered her testimony to prove that her husband
committed arson. Can Leticia testify over the objection of
her husband on the ground of marital privilege? (5%)
2006 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule
Suggested Answer:
Yes, Leticia can testify over the objection of her
husband. As a general rule, neither the husband nor the
wife, during their marriage, may testify for or against the
other without the consent of the affected spouse, except
in 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 (Rule 130,
Sec. 22, Revised Rules on Evidence).
2006 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule
Suggested Answer:
xxx
In a number of cases, it has been held that the marital
disqualification is aimed at protecting the harmony and
confidences of marital relations; hence, where the
marital and domestic relations are so strained that there
is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and
tranquility which may be disturbed, the marital
disqualification no longer applies.
2006 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule
Suggested Answer:
Xxx

The act of Paul in setting fire to the house of his sister-in-


law, knowing fully well that his wife was there, is an act
totally alien to the harmony and confidences of marital
relation which the disqualification primarily seeks to
protect. The criminal act complained of had the effect of
directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation.
2006 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule
Suggested Answer:
xxx

It underscored the fact that the marital and domestic


relations between her and the accused-husband
have become so strained that there is no more
harmony, peace or tranquility to be preserved
(Alvarez v. Ramirez, 473 SCRA 72 [2005]).
2013 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule; Physician-Patient Privilege
Rule; Priest-Penitent Privilege Rule
Question:
For over a year, Nenita had been estranged from her
husband Walter because of the latter’s suspicion that
she was having an affair with Vladimir, a barangay
kagawad who lived in nearby Mandaluyong. Nenita
lived in the meantime with her sister in Makati. One
day, the house of Nenita’s sister inexplicably burned
almost to the ground.
2013 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule; Physician-Patient Privilege
Rule; Priest-Penitent Privilege Rule
Question:
xxx

Nenita and her sister were caught inside the house


but Nenita survived as she fled in time, while her
sister tried to save their belongings and was caught
inside when the house collapsed.
2013 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule; Physician-Patient Privilege
Rule; Priest-Penitent Privilege Rule
Question:
xxx
As she was running away from the burning house, Nenita
was surprised to see her husband also running away
from the scene. Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist who lived
near the burned house and whom Walter medically
consulted after the fire, also saw Walter in the vicinity
some minutes before the fire.
2013 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule; Physician-Patient Privilege
Rule; Priest-Penitent Privilege Rule
Question:
xxx

Coincidentally, Fr. Platino, the parish priest who


regularly hears Walter’s confession and who heard it
after the fire, also encountered him not too far away
from the burned house.
2013 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule; Physician-Patient Privilege
Rule; Priest-Penitent Privilege Rule
Question:
xxx

Walter was charged with arson and at his trial, the


prosecution moved to introduce the testimonies of
Nenita, the doctor and the priest-confessor, who all
saw Walter at the vicinity of the fire at about the time
of the fire.
2013 BAR EXAMS
Marital Privilege Rule; Physician-Patient Privilege
Rule; Priest-Penitent Privilege Rule
xxx
(A) May the testimony of Nenita be allowed over the
objection of Walter? (3%)
(B) May the testimony of Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist,
be allowed over Walter’s objection? (3%)
(C) May the testimony of Fr. Platino, the priest-confessor,
be allowed over Walter’s objection? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(A) May the testimony of Nenita be allowed over the objection of
Walter?
No. Nenita may not be allowed to testify against Walter. Under the Marital
Disqualification Rule, 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 (Section 22, Rule 130, Rules on
Evidence). The foregoing exceptions cannot apply since it only extends to a
criminal case of one spouse against the other or the latter‟s direct
ascendants or descendants. Clearly, Nenita is not the offended party and
her sister is not her direct ascendant or descendant for her to fall within
the exception.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Nenita may be allowed to testify against Walter. It is well settled that
the marital disqualification rule does not apply when the marital and
domestic relations between spouses are strained.
In Alvarez vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005, the
Supreme Court citing People vs. Castaneda, 271 SCRA 504, held that
the act of private respondent in setting fire to the house of his sister-
in-law Susan Ramirez, Knowing fully well that his wife was there, and
in fact with the alleged intent of injuring the latter, is an act totally
alien to the harmony and confidences of marital relation which the
disqualification primarily seeks to protect. The criminal act complained
of had the effect of directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation.
It underscored the fact that the marital and domestic relations
between her and the accused-husband have become so strained that
there is no more harmony, peace or tranquillity to be preserved.
Hence, the identity is non-existent. In such a situation, the security
and confidences of private life which the law aims to protect are
nothing but ideals which through their absence, merely leave a void in
the unhappy home. Thus, there is no reason to apply the Marital
Disqualification Rule.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(B) May the testimony of Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist, be
allowed over Walter’s objection?

Yes. The testimony of Walter‟s psychiatrist may be allowed. The


privileged communication contemplated under Sec. 24 (c) Rule 130 of
the Rules on Evidence involves only persons authorized to practice
medicine, surgery or obstetrics. It does not include a Psychiatrist.
Moreover, the privileged communication applies only in civil cases and
not in a criminal case for arson.

Besides, the subject of the testimony of Dr. Carlos was not in


connection with the advice or treatment given by him to Walter,
or any information he acquired in attending to Walter in a
professional capacity. The testimony of Dr. Carlos is limited only
to what he perceived at the vicinity of the fire and at the time of
the fire.
SUGESSTED ANSWER:
(C) May the testimony of Fr. Platino, the priest-confessor, be allowed
over Walter’s objection?

Yes. The Priest can testify over the objection of Walter. The
disqualification requires that the same were made pursuant to a
religious duty enjoined in the course of discipline of the sect or
denomination to which they belong and must be confidential and
penitential in character, e.g., under the seal of confession (Sec. 24
(d) Rule 130, Rules on Evidence).

Here, the testimony of Fr. Platino was not previously subject of a


confession of Walter or an advice given by him to Walter in his
professional character. The Testimony was merely limited to what
Fr. Platino perceived “at the vicinity of the fire and at about the
time of the fire.” Hence, Fr. Platino may be allowed to testify.
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
a) Rights and obligations of a witness
• Rights:
(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. (Rule 132, Sec. 3).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
a) Rights and obligations of a witness
• Obligations:
1) A witness must answer questions, although his answer may
tend to establish a claim against him (Rule 132, Sec. 3, par.
1).
2) A witness must answer to the fact of his previous final
conviction for an offense (Rule 132, Sec. 3, par. 5).
3) A witness must testify under oath or affirmation (Rule 132,
Sec. 1).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
b) Order in the examination of an individual
witness
i. Direct examination

• Direct examination is the examination-in-chief of a witness


by the party.

• Scope: facts relevant to the issue (Rule 132, Sec. 4).


EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
b) Order in the examination of an individual
witness
i. Direct examination
• Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC) –
• Civil Case: The parties shall file with the court and serve on the
adverse party, personally or by licensed courier service, not later
than five days (5) before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the
scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents, the
following:
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which shall take the
place of such witnesses' direct testimonies; and
(2) The parties' documentary or object evidence, if any, which
shall be attached to the judicial affidavits (Sec. 2).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
b) Order in the examination of an individual
witness
i. Direct examination
• Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC) –
• Criminal Case: The Judicial Affidavit Rule shall apply to all
criminal actions:
(1) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not
exceed six years;
(2) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial
affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or
(3) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever
the penalties involved are (Sec. 9).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
b) Order in the examination of an individual
witness
i. Direct examination
• Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC) –
• Criminal Case:
 The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not
later than five days (5) before the pre-trial, serving copies if the same
upon the accused (Sec. 9).
 If the accused desires to be heard on his defense after receipt of the
judicial affidavits of the prosecution, he shall have the option to submit
his judicial affidavit as well as those of his witnesses within ten (10)
days from receipt of such affidavits. These affidavits shall serve as
direct testimonies of the accused and his witnesses when they appear
before the court to testify (Sec. 9).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
b) Order in the examination of an individual
witness
ii. Cross examination
• Scope:
(1) any matter stated in the direct examination;
(2) or connected therewith (Rule 132, Sec. 5).
(3) If unwilling/hostile/adverse party witness – cross is limited to
matters stated during direct examination. (Rule 132, Sec. 12)
• Purpose:
(1) to test witness’ accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse; and
(2) to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. (Rule 132,
Sec. 5).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
b) Order in the examination of an individual
witness
ii. Cross examination
• Nature of right of cross-examination.
1. Fundamental right - The right of a party to confront and cross-
examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or
civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with
quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due
process. (Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino,
et al., 1975, 62 SCRA 258)
2. Personal right - The right to cross-examination is a personal right
which may be expressly or impliedly waived. (Savory Luncheonette v.
Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino, et al., 1975, supra).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
b) Order in the examination of an individual
witness
ii. Cross examination
• Lack of cross-examination; effect
When cross examination is not and cannot be done or
completed due to causes attributable to the party who
offered the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby
rendered incomplete and should be stricken from the
record. (Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., v. Court of Industrial
Relations, 86 SCRA 27).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
b) Order in the examination of an individual
witness
iii. Re-direct examination
• Scope:
(1) any matter covered during cross-examination;
(2) Matters not covered during cross, upon the court’s
discretion. (Rule 132, Sec. 6).
• Purpose:
(1) to explain; or
(2) to supplement his answers given during the cross-
examination. (Rule 132, Sec. 6).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
b) Order in the examination of an individual
witness
iv. Re-cross examination
• Scope:
(1) Any matter covered during re-direct examination;
(2) Other matters, upon the court’s discretion. (Rule 132, Sec. 7).
• Purpose:
(1) to test witness’ accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse; and
(2) to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
b) Order in the examination of an individual
witness
v. Recalling the witness
• After the examination of a witness by both sides has been
concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the
court. The court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the
interests of justice may require. (Rule 132, Sec. 9)
• A showing of some concrete, substantial grounds for recall, i.e.
such as particularly identified material points were not covered, or
particular vital documents were not presented to the witness or the
cross-examination was conducted in so inept manner as to result in
a virtual absence thereof (People v. Rivera, 200 SCRA 786).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
Judge’s participation during examination of a witness
• A judge who presides at a trial is not a mere referee. He must
actively participate therein by directing counsel to the facts in
dispute, by asking clarifying questions, and by showing an
interest in a fast and fair trial (Clarin v. Yatco, 56 O.G. 7042,
Nov. 14, 1960).
• He can interrogate witnesses to elicit the truth, to obtain
clarification, or to test their credibility (People v Moreno, 83 Phil.
286).
• However, this power must be exercised by the court sparingly
and judiciously (People v. Ferrer, 44 O.G. 112).
• The judge cannot curtail counsel's right to interrogate
witnesses. (People v. Bedia, 83 Phil. 909)
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
Recantation of a witness
• Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can
easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for
monetary considerations. Hence, a retraction does not
necessarily negate an earlier declaration. They are generally
unreliable and looked upon with considerable disfavor by the
courts (People v. Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, 5 October 2011).
• The rule is settled that in cases where previous testimony is
retracted and a subsequent different, if not contrary, testimony
is made by the same witness, the test to decide which
testimony to believe is one of comparison coupled with the
application of the general rules of evidence (People v. Bulagao,
G.R. No. 184757, 5 October 2011)
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
c) Leading and misleading questions
• A leading question is a question which suggests to the
witness the answer which the examining party desires (Rule
132, Sec. 10).
• General rule: A leading question is not allowed.
• Exceptions:
(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. (Rule 132, Sec. 10).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
c) Leading and misleading questions

• A misleading question is one which assumes as true a


fact not yet testified to by the witness, or contrary to that
which he has previously stated.

• General rule: A misleading question is not allowed.


• Exceptions: none.
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
d) Methods of impeachment of adverse party’s witness
A party can impeach the adverse party’s witness by (Rule 132,
Sec. 11):
(1) Contradictory evidence;
Contradictory Evidence refers to other testimony of the same
witness, or other evidence presented by him in the same case, but not the
testimony of another witness
(2) Evidence of prior inconsistent statements;
Prior inconsistent Statements refer to statements, oral or
documentary, made by the witness sought to be impeached on occasions
other than the trial in which he is testifying
(3) Evidence of bad character;
(4) Evidence of bias, interest, prejudice or incompetence.
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
d) Methods of impeachment of adverse party’s witness
• A party can impeach his own witness only by:
(1) Evidence contradictory to his testimony; or
(2) Evidence of prior inconsistent statements.

• Exception: However, in the case of hostile witnesses,


adverse party witnesses or involuntary witnesses, they can
also be impeached by other modes of impeachment, aside
from contradictory statements and prior inconsistent
statements made by them. (Rule 132, Sec. 12).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
e) How the witness is impeached by evidence of
inconsistent statements (laying the predicate)
• Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he
has made at other times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony:
1. the statements must be related to him, with the
circumstances of the times and places and the persons
present;
2. he must be asked whether he made such statements, and
if so, allowed to explain them; and
3. if the statements be in writing, they must be shown to the
witness before any question is put to him concerning them
(Rule 132, Sec. 13).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
e) How the witness is impeached by evidence of
inconsistent statements (laying the predicate)

• Non-compliance with the foundational elements for this


mode will be a ground for an objection based on “improper
impeachment.” Over a timely objection, extrinsic evidence
of a prior inconsistent statement without the required
foundation is not admissible (Riano, p. 327).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
f) Evidence of the good character of a witness

• Evidence of the good character of a witness is not


admissible until such character has been impeached (Rule
132, Sec. 14).

• This arises from the presumption that the witness is truthful


and of good character, hence the necessity of initially
showing such traits is unnecessary (Riano, p. 331).
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
g) Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

• Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, judicial affidavits of


witnesses shall take the place of their direct testimonies
(Sec. 2).

• The adverse party shall have the right to cross-examine


the witness on his judicial affidavit and on the exhibits
attached to the same.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

a) Applicability of the rule

• Unless otherwise provided, the Rule shall govern


the examination of child witnesses who are
victims of crime, accused of a crime, and
witnesses to crime. It shall apply in all criminal
proceedings and non-criminal proceedings
involving child witnesses (Sec. 1).
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

b) Meaning of “child witness”

• A child witness is any person who at the time of


giving testimony is below the age of 18 years. In
child abuse cases, 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 a physical or mental
disability or condition (Sec. 4[a]).
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

c) Competency of a child witness

• Every child is presumed qualified to be a


witness. However, the court shall conduct a
competency examination of a child, motu propio
or on motion of a party, when it finds that
substantial doubt exists regarding the stability of
the child to perceive, remember, communicate,
distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the
duty to tell the truth in court (Sec. 6).
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

c) Competency of a child witness

• Proof of necessity. A party seeking a competency


examination must present proof of necessity of competency
examination. The age of the child by itself is not a sufficient
basis for a competency examination (Sec. 6[a]).

• Burden of proof. To rebut the presumption of competence


enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof lies on the party
challenging his competence (Sec. 6[b]).
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

c) Competency of a child witness


• Persons allowed at competency examination. Only the
following are allowed to attend a competency examination:
(a) The judge and necessary court personnel;
(b) The counsel for the parties;
(c) The guardian ad litem;
(d) One or more support persons for the child; and
(e) The defendant, unless the court determines that competence
can be fully evaluated in his absence (Sec. 6[c]).
• Conduct of examination. Examination of a child as to his
competence shall be conducted only by the judge. Counsel for
the parties, however, can submit questions to the judge that he
may, in his discretion, ask the child (Sec. 6[d]).
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

c) Competency of a child witness


• Developmentally appropriate questions. The questions
asked at the competency examination shall be appropriate
to the age and developmental level of the child; shall not
be related to the issues at trial; and shall focus on the
ability of the child to remember, communicate, distinguish
between truth and falsehood, and appreciate the duty to
testify truthfully (Sec. 6[e]).
• Continuing duty to assess competence. The court has
the duty of continuously assessing the competence of the
child throughout his testimony (Sec. 6[f]).
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

d) Examination of a child witness

• The examination of a child witness presented in a


hearing or any proceeding shall be done in open
court. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak,
or the question calls for a different mode of answer,
the answers of the witness shall be given orally. The
party who presents a child witness or the guardian
ad litem of such child witness may, however, move
the court to allow him to testify in the manner
provided in this Rule (Sec. 8).
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

e) Live-link TV testimony of a child witness


(a) The prosecutor, counsel or the guardian ad litem may apply for
an order that the testimony of the child be taken in a room outside the
courtroom and be televised to the courtroom by live-link television.
Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section,
he shall consult the prosecutor or counsel and shall defer to the
judgment of the prosecutor or counsel regarding the necessity of
applying for an order. In case the guardian ad litem is convinced that
the decision of the prosecutor or counsel not to apply will cause the
child serious emotional trauma, he himself may apply for the order.
The person seeking such an order shall apply at least five (5) days
before the trial date, unless the court finds on the record that the need
for such an order was not reasonably foreseeable.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

e) Live-link TV testimony of a child witness


(b) The court may motu propio hear and determine, with notice
to the parties, the need for taking the testimony of the child
through live-link television.
(c) The judge may question the child in chambers or in some
comfortable place other than the courtroom, in the presence of
the support person, guardian ad litem, prosecutor, and
counsel for the parties. The questions of the judge shall not be
related to the issues at trial but to the feelings of the child
about testifying in the courtroom.
(d) The judge may exclude any person, including the accused,
whose presence or conduct causes fear to the child.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

e) Live-link TV testimony of a child witness


(e) The court shall issue an order granting or denying the use of
live-link television and stating the reasons therefor. It shall
consider the following factors:
(1) The age and level of development of the child;
(2) His physical and mental health, including any mental or
physical disability;
(3) Any physical, emotional, or psychological injury
experienced by him;
(4) The nature of the alleged abuse;
(5) Any threats against the child;
(6) His relationship with the accused or adverse party;
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

e) Live-link TV testimony of a child witness


(e) The court shall issue an order granting or denying the use of live-link
television and stating the reasons therefor. It shall consider the following
factors:
(7) His reaction to any prior encounters with the accused in court or
elsewhere;
(8) His reaction prior to trial when the topic of testifying was discussed with
him by parents or professionals;
(9) Specific symptoms of stress exhibited by the child in the days prior to
testifying;
(10) Testimony of expert or lay witnesses;
(11) The custodial situation of the child and the attitude of the members of
his family regarding the events about which he will testify; and
(12) Other relevant factors, such as court atmosphere and formalities of
court procedure.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

e) Live-link TV testimony of a child witness

(f) The court may order that the testimony of the child be taken
by live-link television if there is a substantial likelihood that the
child would suffer trauma from testifying in the presence of the
accused, his counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be.
The trauma must be of a kind which would impair the
completeness or truthfulness of the testimony of the child.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

e) Live-link TV testimony of a child witness


(g) If the court orders the taking of testimony by live-link
television:
(1) The child shall testify in a room separate from the courtroom in
the presence of the guardian ad litem; one or both of his support
persons, the facilitator and interpreter, if any; a court officer appointed
by the court; persons necessary to operate the closed-circuit
television equipment; and other persons whose presence are
determined by the court to be necessary to the welfare and well-
being of the child;
(2) The judge, prosecutor, accused, and counsel for the parties shall
be in the courtroom. The testimony of the child shall be transmitted
by live-link television into the courtroom for viewing and hearing by
the judge, prosecutor, counsel for the parties, accused, victim, and
the public unless excluded.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

e) Live-link TV testimony of a child witness


(g) If the court orders the taking of testimony by live-link
television:

(3) If it is necessary for the child to identify the accused at trial,


the court may allow the child to enter the courtroom for the limited
purpose of identifying the accused, or the court may allow the
child to identify the accused by observing the image of the latter
on a television monitor.
(4) The court may set other conditions and limitations on the
taking of the testimony that it finds just and appropriate, taking
into consideration the best interests of the child.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

e) Live-link TV testimony of a child witness

(h) The testimony of the child shall be preserved on


videotape, digital disc, or other similar devices which shall be
made part of the court record and shall be subject to a
protective order as provided in Section 31(b).
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

f) Videotaped deposition of a child witness

(a) The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad litem may apply for


an order that a deposition be taken of the testimony of the child
and that it be recorded and preserved on videotape. Before the
guardian ad litem applies for an order under this section, he
shall consult with the prosecutor or counsel subject to the
second and third paragraphs of section 25(a).

(b) If the court finds that the child will not be able to testify in
open court at trial, it shall issue an order that the deposition of
the child be taken and preserved by videotape.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)
f) Videotaped deposition of a child witness
(c) The judge shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a child.
Objections to deposition testimony or evidence, or parts thereof, and the
grounds for the objection shall be stated and shall ruled upon at the time of
the taking of the deposition. The other persons who may be permitted to be
present at the proceeding are:
(1) The prosecutor;
(2) The defense counsel;
(3) The guardian ad litem;
(4) The accused, subject to subsection (e);
(5) Other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be
necessary to the welfare and well-being of the child;
(6) One or both of his support persons, the facilitator and interpreter, if any;
(7) The court stenographer; and
(8) Persons necessary to operate the videotape equipment.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

f) Videotaped deposition of a child witness


(d) The rights of the accused during trial, especially the right to
counsel and to confront and cross-examine the child, shall not be
violated during the deposition.

(e) If the order of the court is based on evidence that the child is
unable to testify in the physical presence of the accused, the court
may direct the latter to be excluded from the room in which the
deposition is conducted. In case of exclusion of the accused, the
court shall order that the testimony of the child be taken by live-link
television in accordance with section 25 of this Rule. If the accused
is excluded from the deposition, it is not necessary that the child be
able to view an image of the accused.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

f) Videotaped deposition of a child witness


(f) The videotaped deposition shall be preserved and
stenographically recorded. The videotape and the stenographic
notes shall be transmitted to the clerk of the court where the case
is pending for safekeeping and shall be made a part of the record.

(g) The court may set other conditions on the taking of the
deposition that it finds just and appropriate, taking into
consideration the best interests of the child, the constitutional rights
of the accused, and other relevant factors.

(h) The videotaped deposition and stenographic notes shall be


subject to a protective order as provided in section 31(b).
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

f) Videotaped deposition of a child witness


(i) If, at the time of trial, the court finds that the child is unable to
testify for a reason stated in section 25(f) of this Rule, or is
unavailable for any reason described in section 4(c), Rule 23 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may admit into
evidence the videotaped deposition of the child in lieu of his
testimony at the trial. The court shall issue an order stating the
reasons therefor.
(j) After the original videotaping but before or during trial, any
party may file any motion for additional videotaping on the
ground of newly discovered evidence. The court may order an
additional videotaped deposition to receive the newly discovered
evidence (Sec. 27).
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

g) Hearsay exception in child abuse cases

A statement made by a child describing any act or


attempted act of child abuse, not otherwise
admissible under the hearsay rule, may be admitted
in evidence in any criminal or non-criminal
proceeding subject to the following rules:
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

g) Hearsay exception in child abuse cases

(a) Before such hearsay statement may be admitted, its


proponent shall make known to the adverse party the
intention to offer such statement and its particulars to
provide him a fair opportunity to object. If the child is
available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party,
require the child to be present at the presentation of the
hearsay statement for cross-examination by the adverse
party. When the child is unavailable, the fact of such
circumstance must be proved by the proponent.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

g) Hearsay exception in child abuse cases

(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement, the


court shall consider the time, content and circumstances thereof
which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. It shall consider the
following factors:
(1) Whether there is a motive to lie;
(2) The general character of the declarant child;
(3) Whether more than one person heard the statement;
(4) Whether the statement was spontaneous;
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

g) Hearsay exception in child abuse cases

(5) The timing of the statement and the relationship


between the declarant child and witness;
(6) Cross-examination could not show the lack of
knowledge of the declarant child;
(7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant
child is remote; and
(8) The circumstances surrounding the statement are such
that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child
misrepresented the involvement of the accused.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)
g) Hearsay exception in child abuse cases
(c) The child witness shall be considered unavailable under
the following situations:
(1) Is deceased, suffers from physical infirmity, lack of memory,
mental illness, or will be exposed to sever psychological injury;
or
(2) Is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his
statement has been unable to procure his attendance by
process or other reasonable means.

(d) When the child witness is unavailable, his hearsay


testimony shall be admitted only if corroborated by other
admissible evidence (Sec. 28).
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

h) Sexual abuse shield rule

Inadmissible evidence: The following evidence is


not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving
alleged child sexual abuse:
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged
in other sexual behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual pre-disposition of the
alleged victim.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

h) Sexual abuse shield rule


• Exception: Evidence of specific instances of sexual
behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person
other than the accused was the source of semen, injury,
or other physical evidence shall be admissible. A party
intending to offer such evidence must:
(1) File a written motion at least fifteen (5) days before trial,
specifically describing the evidence and stating the purpose for
which it is offered, unless the court, for good cause, requires a
different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and
(2) Serve the motion on all parties and the guardian ad litem at
least three (3) days before the hearing of the motion.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

h) Sexual abuse shield rule

• Before admitting such evidence, the court must conduct a


hearing in chambers and afford the child, his guardian ad
litem, the parties, and their counsel a right to attend and be
heard. The motion and the record of the hearing must be
sealed and remain under seal and protected by a protected
order set forth in section 31(b). The child shall not be
required to testify at the hearing in chambers except with
his consent (Sec. 30).
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

i) Protective orders
(a) Protective order. Any videotape or audiotape of a child
that is part of the court record shall be under a protective
order that provides as follows:

(1) Tapes may be viewed only by parties, their counsel, their


expert witness, and the guardian ad litem.

(2) No tape, or any portion thereof, shall be divulged by any


person mentioned in subsection (a) to any other person,
except as necessary for the trial.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

i) Protective orders
(3) No person shall be granted access to the tape, its
transcription or any part thereof unless he signs a written
affirmation that he has received and read a copy of the
protective order; that he submits to the jurisdiction of the
court with respect to the protective order; and that in case
of violation thereof, he will be subject to the contempt
power of the court.
(4) Each of the tape cassettes and transcripts thereof made
available to the parties, their counsel, and respective
agents shall bear a cautionary notice that the object or
document and the contents thereof are subject to a
protective order issued by the court.
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

i) Protective orders

(5) No tape shall be given, loaned, sold, or shown to any


person except as ordered by the court.
(6) Within thirty (30) days from receipt, all copies of the tape
and any transcripts thereof shall be returned to the clerk of
court for safekeeping unless the period is extended by the
court on motion of a party.
(7) This protective order shall remain in full force and effect
until further order of the court (Sec. 31 [b]).
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS (A.M. NO. 004-07-SC)

i) Protective orders

(b) Additional protective orders. The court may, motu


propio or on motion of any party, the child, his parents, legal
guardian, or the guardian ad litem, issue additional orders to
protect the privacy of the child (Sec. 31(c).
2004 BAR EXAMS
WITNESS
Competency of the Witness v. Credibility of the Witness
Question:

Distinguish clearly but briefly between:

xxx

2. Competency of the witness and credibility of the witness.


xxx
2004 BAR EXAMS
WITNESS
Competency of the Witness v. Credibility of the Witness

Suggested Answer:

Competency of the witness refers to a witness who can


perceive, and perceiving, can make known his perception to
others (Sec. 20 of Rule 130), while credibility of the witness
refers to a witness whose testimony is believable.
2005 BAR EXAMS
WITNESS
Examination of a Child Witness via live-link television

Question:

When may the trial court order that the testimony of a child be
taken by live-link television? Explain.
2005 BAR EXAMS
WITNESS
Examination of a Child Witness via live-link television

Suggested Answer:

The testimony of a child may be taken by live-link television if


there is a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer
trauma from testifying in the presence of the accused, his
counsel or the prosecutor as the case may be. The trauma
must of a kind which would impair the completeness or
truthfulness of the testimony of the child. (See Sec. 25, Rule
on Examination of a Child Witness).
2006 BAR EXAMS
WITNESS
State Witness
Question:

As counsel of an accused charged with homicide, you are


convinced that he can be utilized as a state witness. What
procedure will you take? (2.5%)
2006 BAR EXAMS
WITNESS
State Witness
Suggested Answer:

As counsel for the accused, I will advise my client to ask for a


reinvestigation and convince the prosecutor for him to move for the
discharge of my client as a state witness, or the accused can apply
as a state witness with the Department of Justice pursuant to
Republic Act No. 6981, The Witness Protection, Security and
Benefit Act. The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide
range of discretion, including what and whom to charge (Soberano
v. People, 475 SCRA 125 [2005]).
2006 BAR EXAMS
One-Day Examination of Witness Rule
Question:

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or


FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not
more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
xxx

c. The One-Day Examination of Witness Rule abbreviates


court proceedings by having a witness fully examined in only
one day during trial.
2006 BAR EXAMS
One-Day Examination of Witness Rule
Suggested Answer:
TRUE. Par. 5(i) Supreme Court A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC requires that a
witness has to be fully examined in one (1) day only. This rule shall
be strictly adhered to subject to the courts’ discretion during trial on
whether or not to extend the direct and/or cross-examination for
justifiable reasons. On the last hearing day allotted for such party,
he is required to make his formal offer of evidence after the
presentation of his last witness and the opposing party is required
to immediately interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter, the judge
shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open court.
However, the judge has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence
in writing in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132.
2015 BAR EXAMS
Examination of a Child Witness
Question:
AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met BB, a teenage
boy who befriended her. Later, BB brought AA to a nearby shanty
where he raped her. The Information for rape filed against BB
states:

"On or about October 30, 2015, in the City of S.P. and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, a minor, fifteen
(15) years old with lewd design and by means of force, violence
and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously had sexual intercourse with AA. A minor, twelve (12)
years old against the latter's will and consent."
2015 BAR EXAMS
Examination of a Child Witness
Question:
At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand AA as
his first witness and manifested that he be allowed to ask
leading questions in conducting his direct examination
pursuant to the Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness.
BB 'S counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutor
has not conducted a competency examination on the
witness, a requirement before the rule cited can be applied
in the case.
a) Is BB’s counsel correct? (3%)
2015 BAR EXAMS
Examination of a Child Witness
Suggested Answer:
No. BB’s counsel is not correct. Every child is presumed qualified to be
a witness (Sec. 6, Rule on Examination of a Child Witness). To rebut
the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, the burden of proof
lies on the party challenging his competence (Sec. 6 of A.M. No. 005-
07-SC or the Rules on Examination of Child Witness).

Here, AA, a 12-year old child witness who is presumed to be


competent, may be asked leading questions by the prosecutor in
conducting his direct examination pursuant to the RECW and the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (People v. Santos, G.R. No.
171452, October 17, 2008).
2015 BAR EXAMS
Examination of a Child Witness
Question:
b) In order to obviate the counsel’s argument on the
competency of AA as prosecution witness, the judge motu
proprio conducted his voir dire examination on AA. Was the
action taken by the judge proper? (2%)
2015 BAR EXAMS
Examination of a Child Witness
Suggested Answer:
Yes, the judge may motu proprio conduct his voir dire
examination on AA. Under the Rules on Examination of Child
Witness, the court shall conduct a competency examination of a
child, motu proprio or on motion of a party, when it finds that
substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to
perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from
falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court (Sec. 6
of A.M. No. 005-07-SC or the Rules on Examination of Child
Witness).
2016 BAR EXAMS
Most Important Witness Rule

Question:
What is the “most important witness” rule pursuant to the 2004
Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-Discovery
Measures? Explain. (2.5)
2016 BAR EXAMS
Most Important Witness Rule
Suggested Answer:
Under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC or the “2004 Guidelines of Pre-trial and Use of
Deposition-Discovery Measures,” in civil cases where no amicable
settlement was reached by the parties, the trial judge is directed to
determine the most important witnesses and limit the number of such
witnesses to be heard. The court shall also require the parties and/or
counsels to submit the names, addresses and contact numbers of the
witnesses to be summoned by subpoena. The facts to be proven by each
witness and the approximate number of hours per witness shall also be
fixed by the trial judge (Section (I)(A)(5)(j) of A.M. No. 03-01-09-SC or the
“2004 Guidelines of Pre-trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures”,
July 13, 2004).
2016 BAR EXAMS
One-Day Examination of Witness Rule
Question:
What is the “one day examination of witness” rule pursuant to
the 2004 Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-
Discovery Measures?? Explain. (2.5%)
2016 BAR EXAMS
One-Day Examination of Witness Rule
Suggested Answer:
The rule requires that a witness has to be fully examined in one (1) day
only. This rule shall be strictly adhered to subject to the courts’ discretion
during trial on whether or not to extend the direct and/or cross-examination
for justifiable reasons. On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is
required to make his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his
last witness and the opposing party is required to immediately interpose
his objection thereto. Thereafter, the judge shall make the ruling on the
offer of evidence in open court, but the judge has the discretion to allow
the offer of evidence in writing in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132
(Section (I)(A)(5)(i) of A.M. No. 03-01-09-SC or the “2004 Guidelines of
Pre-trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures”, July 13, 2004).
2016 BAR EXAMS
Cross-Examination of a Witness
Question:
Pedro, the principal witness in a criminal case. Testified and
completed his testimony on direct examination in 2015. Due to
several postponements by the accused, grounded on his recurring
illness, which were all granted by the judge, the cross-examination
of Pedro was finally set on October 15, 2016. Before the said date,
Pedro died. The accused moved to expunge Pedro’s testimony on
the ground that it violates his right of confrontation and the right to
cross-examine the witness. The prosecution opposed the motion
and asked Pedro’s testimony on direct examination be admitted as
evidence. Is the motion meritorious? Explain. (5%)
2016 BAR EXAMS
Cross-Examination of a Witness
Suggested Answer:
The Motion is meritorious. The cross-examination of a witness is an
absolute right, not a mere privilege, of the party against whom he is
called. With regard to the accused, it is a right guaranteed by the
fundamental law as part of due process. Article III, Sec. 14, par. (2), of
the 1987 Constitution specifically mandates that "the accused shall enjoy
the right to meet the witnesses face to face," and Rule 115, Sec. 1, par. (f),
of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure enjoins that in all criminal
prosecutions the accused shall be entitled to confront and cross-examine
the witnesses against him at the trial. Accordingly, the testimony of a
witness given on direct examination should be stricken off the record
where there was no adequate opportunity for cross-examination (People v.
Fernando Monjey Rosario, G.R. No. 146689, September 27, 2002).
2016 BAR EXAMS
Cross-Examination of a Witness
Suggested Answer:
In People v. Manchetti, (G.R. No. L-48883 August 6, 1980), the Supreme
Court also held that if a party is deprived of the opportunity of cross
examination without fault on his part, as in the case of the illness and
death of a witness after direct examination, he is entitled to have the direct
testimony stricken from the records. Since the accused was deprived of his
opportunity to cross examine the witness without fault on his part, the
motion to expunge is meritorious.
JUDICIAL NOTICE
(JUDICIAL NOTICE - ASKED IN 1997, 2005, AND 2012)
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED

•The following need not be proved:


1. Facts which a court shall or may take judicial
notice of (Rule 129, Secs. 1 and 2);
2. Judicial admissions (Rule 129, Sec. 4);
3. Conclusive presumptions;
4. Disputable presumptions not disputed;
5. Res Ipsa Loquitur (Latin for "the thing or the
transaction speaks for itself.“)
MATTERS OF JUDICIAL
NOTICE
a) Mandatory
• Court is compelled to take judicial notice; takes
place at the court's own initiative.
• The court shall take mandatory judicial notice of
the following (Rule 129, Sec. 1):
• Existence and territorial extent of states;
• Their political history;
• Forms of government;
• Symbols of nationality;
• Law of nations;
MATTERS OF JUDICIAL
NOTICE
a) Mandatory
• The court shall take mandatory judicial notice of
the following (Rule 129, Sec. 1):
• Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their
seals;
• Political constitution and history of the Philippines.
• Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial
departments of the Philippines;
• Laws of nature;
• Measure of time;
• Geographical divisions.
MATTERS OF JUDICIAL
NOTICE

b) Discretionary

• 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. at the court's initiative, or on request
of a party; requires a hearing and presentation
of evidence.
MATTERS OF JUDICIAL
NOTICE

b) Discretionary

• Judicial notice is discretionary in the


following:
• Matters of public knowledge;
• Matters capable of unquestionable demonstration;
• Matters which ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions.
MATTERS OF JUDICIAL
NOTICE
b) Discretionary
•When hearing is necessary (Rule 129, Sec. 3)
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.
MATTERS OF JUDICIAL
NOTICE
b) Discretionary
• Examples of matters of public knowledge:
• Giving of tips, especially in a first rate hotel, is an
accepted practice which the Court can take judicial
notice of (PAL v. CA, 257 SCRA 33, 1997).
• The current practice among major establishments to
accept payment by means of credit cards in lieu of cash
(Mandarin Villa v. CA, 257 SCRA 538).
• Scientific findings that drug abuse can damage the
mental faculties of the use. (Bughaw, Jr. v. Treasure Isle
Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 169606, November 27,
2009).
2005 BAR EXAMS

Question: Explain briefly whether the RTC may, motu


proprio, take judicial notice of: (5%)

a) The street name of methamphetamine hydro-chloride


is shabu;
b) Ordinances approved by municipalities under its
territorial jurisdiction;
c) Foreign laws;
d) Rules and Regulations issued by quasi-judicial bodies
implementing statutes;
e) Rape may be committed even in public places.
2005 BAR EXAMS
Suggested Answers:

The RTC may motu proprio take judicial notice of


the street name of methamphetamine hydrochloride
is shabu, considering the chemical composition of
shabu (People v. Macasling, GM, No. 90342, 27
May 1993).
2005 BAR EXAMS
Suggested Answers:
In the absence of statutory authority, the RTC may
not take judicial notice of ordinances approved by
municipalities under their territorial jurisdiction,
except on appeal from the municipal trial courts,
which took judicial notice of the ordinance in
question. (U.S. v. Blanco, G.R. No. 12435, 9
November 1917; U.S. v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 9699,
26 August 1915).
2005 BAR EXAMS
Suggested Answers:

The RTC may not generally take judicial notice of


foreign laws (In re Estate of Johnson, G.R. No.
12767, 16 November 1918; Fluemer v. Hix, G.R.
No. 32636, March 17, 1930), which must be proved
like any other matter of fact (Sy Joe Lieng v. Sy
Quia, G.R. No. 4718, 19 March 1910) except in a
few instances,…
2005 BAR EXAMS
Suggested Answers:
xxx the court in the exercise of its sound judicial
discretion, may take notice of foreign laws when
Philippine courts are evidently familiar with them,
such as the Spanish Civil Code, which had taken
effect in the Philippines, and other allied legislation
(Pardo v. Republic, G.R. No. L¬2248 January 23,
1950; Delgado v. Republic, G.R. No. L¬2546,
January .28, 1950).
PRESUMPTIONS

• Presumption – is an inference of an existence


or non-existence of a fact which courts are
permitted to draw from the proof of other facts.

• Presumption compared with judicial notice


and admissions:
• Presumption - proponent still has to introduce
evidence of the basis of the presumption.
• Judicial notice and judicial admission - as a
rule, proponent does not have to introduce
evidence.
PRESUMPTIONS

Classification of Presumptions

Presumption of Law Presumption of Fact


Praesumptiones Juris Praesumptiones hominis
A deduction which the law A deduction which reason draws
expressly directs to be made from facts proved without an
from particular facts. express direction from the law to
that effect.
Based on rules, laws, and Discretionary.
jurisprudence.
Types:
1. Conclusive (juris et de jure)
2. Disputable (juris tantum or
prima facie)
PRESUMPTIONS

• Conclusive presumptions

Conclusive presumptions are not permitted to


be overcome by any proof to the contrary.
PRESUMPTIONS

Conclusive presumptions:
• 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
(Rule 131, Sec. 2 [a]).
• 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. (Rule
131, Sec. 2 [b]).
PRESUMPTIONS

•Disputable presumptions

Disputable presumptions are those


which the law permits to be overcome or
contradicted.
PRESUMPTIONS

• Disputable presumptions (under Rule 131,


Section 3):
(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 wilfully 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;
PRESUMPTIONS
• Disputable presumptions (under Rule 131,
Section 3):
(h) That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid;
(i) That prior rents or instalments had been paid when a receipt
for the later ones is produced;
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the
doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the
whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possesses, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him;
(k) That a person in possession of an order on himself for the
payment of the money, or the delivery of anything, has paid the
money or delivered the thing accordingly;
PRESUMPTIONS

• Disputable presumptions (under Rule 131,


Section 3):
(l) That a person acting in a public office was regularly
appointed or elected to it;
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise of
jurisdiction;
(o) That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were
laid before the court and passed upon by it; and in like manner
that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for
arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by
them;
PRESUMPTIONS
• Disputable presumptions (under Rule 131,
Section 3):
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular;
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed;
(r) That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract;
(s) That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a
sufficient consideration;
(t) That an indorsement of a negotiable instrument was
made before the instrument was overdue and at the place
where the instrument is dated;
(u) That a writing is truly dated;
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the
regular course of the mail;
PRESUMPTIONS
• Disputable presumptions (under Rule 131,
Section 3):

(w) That after an absence of seven years, it being unknown


whether or not the absentee still lives, he is considered dead
for all purposes, except for those of succession. The
absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of
opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If
he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an
absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his
succession may be opened.
PRESUMPTIONS
Disputable presumptions (under Rule 131,
Section 3):
The following shall be considered dead for all purposes
including the division of the estate among the heirs:
(1)A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or
an aircraft which is missing, who has not been heard of for
four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft;
(2)A member of the armed forces who has taken part in
armed hostilities, and has been missing for four years;
(3)A person who has been in danger of death under other
circumstances and whose existence has not been known
for four years;
PRESUMPTIONS
Disputable presumptions (under Rule 131,
Section 3):
(4) If a married person has been absent for four consecutive
years, the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage
if he or she has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is
already dead. In case of disappearance, where there is danger
of death under the circumstances hereinabove provided, an
absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of
contracting a subsequent marriage. However, in any case,
before marrying again, the spouse present must institute a
summary proceeding as provided in the Family Code and in the
rules for a declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent
spouse.
PRESUMPTIONS
• Disputable presumptions (under Rule 131, Section 3):
(x) That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing
acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact;
(y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of
nature and the ordinary habits of life;
(z) That persons acting as co-partners have entered into a contract
of co-partnership;
(aa) That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband
and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
(bb) That property acquired by a man and a woman who are
capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each
other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under
a void marriage, has been obtained by their joint efforts, work or
industry.
PRESUMPTIONS
Disputable presumptions (under Rule 131, Section 3):
(cc) That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are
not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquired
property through their actual joint contribution of money, property
or industry, such contributions and their corresponding shares
including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are
equal.
(dd) That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted
another marriage within three hundred days after such termination
of the former marriage, these rules shall govern in the absence of
proof to the contrary:
(1) A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during the former
marriage, provided it be born within three hundred days after the termination of the
former marriage;
PRESUMPTIONS
Disputable presumptions (under Rule 131, Section 3):
(2) A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the
subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage,
even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the
former marriage.
(ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual
with things of that nature;
(ff) That the law has been obeyed;
(gg) That a printed or published book, purporting to be printed or
published by public authority, was so printed or published;
(hh) That a printed or published book, purporting to contain reports
of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is
published, contains correct reports of such cases;
PRESUMPTIONS
Disputable presumptions (under Rule 131, Section 3):
(ii) That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real
property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him
when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such
person or his successor in interest;
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons
perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or
conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no
particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the
survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the
strength and age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have
survived;
2. If both were above the age of sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;
PRESUMPTIONS
Disputable presumptions (under Rule 131, Section 3):
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to
have survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male
is deemed to have survived; if the sex be the same, the older;
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages,
the latter is deemed to have survived.
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons
who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them
died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other,
shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be
considered to have died at the same time.
PRESUMPTIONS
• Some notes on disputable presumptions under
Rule 131, Section 3

Willful suppression of evidence (par. e)

• Requisites:
• The evidence is material.
• Party had the opportunity to produce the same.
• Said evidence is available only to said party.
PRESUMPTIONS
• Some notes on disputable presumptions
under Rule 131, Section 3

Wilful suppression of evidence (par. e)

•Presumption does not apply:


• If the evidence is at the disposal of both parties. (People v. Ducay,
225 SCRA 1).
• The suppression was not willful.
• The suppressed evidence is merely corroborative or cumulative.
• The suppression is an exercise of a privilege (People v. Navaja, 220
SCRA 624).
PRESUMPTIONS
• Some notes on disputable presumptions
under Rule 131, Section 3
Presumption of authorship of a recent lawful act (par. j)
The rationale for this presumption is similar to the rationale
for the presumption of authorship of falsification, which
states that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one
found in possession of and who used a forged document is
the forger of said document. If a person had in his
possession a falsified document and he made use of it,
taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear
presumption is that he is the material author of the
falsification. (Lastrilla v. Granada, G.R. No. 160257, 31
January 2006).
JUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS
(ADMISSIONS - ASKED IN 1998, 2006, 2008, 2009, AND
2011)
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

• Judicial admission is an admission, verbal or


written, made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case, does not require
proof. (Rule 129, Sec. 4).

• The admission may be contradicted only by


showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was made.
(Rule 129, Sec. 4).
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Judicial admissions may be made in:
• Pleadings filed by the parties; or
• During the course of the trial, either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations.

A judicial admission must be made in the same case in


which it is offered. If made in another case or in another
court, it must be proven as in any other fact, but entitled
greater weight. This is admissible unless:
• Made only for purposes of the first case;
• Withdrawn with the permission of the court; and
• Court deems it proper to relieve the party.
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
Examples/Forms of Judicial Admissions
• Implied admissions of allegations of usury and in
actionable documents if not specifically denied under
oath (Rule 8, Secs. 8 and 11).
• Admissions during pre-trial in civil and criminal cases.
(N.B.: In criminal cases the admission must be reduced
in writing and signed by accused and counsel [Rule 118,
Sec. 4]).
• Admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in
evidence against the pleader. (Rule 10, Sec. 8). These
are treated as extrajudicial admissions which must be
proven as fact.
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
• Examples/Forms of Judicial Admissions
• Implied admissions in the modes of discovery
(Depositions; Interrogatories – Rule 23; Failure to
specifically deny under oath within 15 days a Request
for Admission in a pending case – Rule 26).

• Plea of guilt in criminal case (N.B.: A withdrawn plea of


guilt is inadmissible, unlike in civil cases where a
withdrawn judicial admission is considered an
extrajudicial admission).
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
• Examples/Forms of Judicial Admissions

• Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive upon a


client absent any gross negligence which deprives
counsel of due process of law or there is outright
deprivation of property or liberty (Cuenco v. Talisay
Tourist Sports Complex, G.R. No. 174154, 17 October
2008).
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

a) Effect of judicial admissions

Judicial admissions have the following effects:


• A matter admitted need no longer be proved;
• The matter admitted cannot be contradicted because they are
conclusive upon the party making it.
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
b) How judicial admissions may be
contradicted

Judicial admissions may be contradicted in the


following instances:
• Upon a showing that the admission was made
through palpable mistake; and
• When it is shown that no such admission was
made.
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS, LAW
OF NATIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

Foreign laws
• Foreign laws may be taken judicial notice in the
following instances:
• When the foreign law refers to the law of nations.
(Rule 129, Sec. 1).
• When the court takes judicial notice of a published
treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of law
as a learned treatise. (Rule 130, Sec. 46).
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS, LAW
OF NATIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
Foreign laws
• Foreign laws may be taken judicial notice in the
following instances:
• When the foreign statute is accepted by the Philippine
government (Republic v. Guanzon, 61 SCRA 360).
• When a foreign judgment containing foreign law is
recognized for enforcement. (Rule 39, Sec. 48).
• If the foreign law refers to common law doctrines and
rules from which many of our laws were derived. (Alzua v.
Johnson, 21 Phil. 308).
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS, LAW
OF NATIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

Foreign laws

 Doctrine of Processual Presumption – Under this


doctrine, the foreign law is considered the same as the
law of the forum. It arises if the foreign law, though
properly applicable is either not alleged or if alleged is not
duly proved before a competent court.
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS, LAW
OF NATIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

Foreign laws
To prove foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy
thereof and comply with Rules 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of
Court which states:
SEC. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents
referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any
purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy
attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a
certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the
record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of
the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is
kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS, LAW
OF NATIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

Foreign laws
To prove foreign law, the party invoking it must present a
copy thereof and comply with Rules 132, Sections 24 and
25 of the Rules of Court which states:

SEC. 25. What attestation of copy must state. —


Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the
purpose of the evidence, the attestation must state, in
substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or
a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation
must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there
be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under
the seal of such court.
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS, LAW
OF NATIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

Law of Nations

• Under the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines


adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land
(1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 2).
• Being part of the law of the land, they are
therefore technically in the nature of local laws
and thus subject to mandatory judicial notice.
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS, LAW
OF NATIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

Municipal ordinances
• Generally, courts are required to take judicial notice of laws.
However, courts are not mandated to take judicial notice of
municipal ordinances unless the charter of the concerned city
provides for such judicial notice. (City of Manila v. Garcia,
1967). But inferior courts sitting in the respective
municipalities or cities are mandated to take judicial notice
thereof. The reason is that violations of the ordinances are
usually vested to the inferior courts exclusively in the exercise
of their original jurisdiction.
• If an inferior court took judicial notice of a fact and there was
an appeal, such court taking the appeal should likewise take
judicial notice. (U.S. v. Blanco, 37 Phil. 126).
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS, LAW
OF NATIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

Court Orders

• Courts are required to take judicial notice of the decisions


of appellate courts but not of the decisions of coordinate
courts.

• In fact, a court may not take judicial notice of the decision


or the facts involved in another case tried by the same
court itself unless the parties introduce the same in
evidence or doing so is convenient.
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
a) Res inter alios acta rule
• The maxim res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
literally means “things done between strangers ought not to
injure those who are not parties to them” (Black’s Law
Dictionary, 5th ed., 1178).
• The res inter alios acta rule has two branches, to wit:
• The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter
provided (Rule 130, Sec. 128); and
• The rule that the 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 similar thing at another time (Rule 132,
Sec. 34).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
b) Admission by a party

An admission is an act, declaration or


omission of a party as to a relevant fact which
may be given in evidence against him (Rule
130, Sec. 2).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
• Admission and Confession, Distinguished
ADMISSION CONFESSION
It is a statement of fact
It involves an
which does not involve an
acknowledgement of guilt or
acknowledgement of guilt or
liability.
liability.

It may be express or tacit. It must be express.

It may be made by third It can be made only by the


persons and, in certain cases, party himself and, in certain
are admissible against a cases, are admissible against
party. his co-accused.
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
c) Admission by a third party
• General rule: The rights of a party CANNOT be prejudiced by
an act, declaration, or omission of another (Rule 130, Sec. 28).
*This is also known as the first branch of the Res Inter Alios Acta
Rule (from “res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet”).
• Exceptions (a.k.a. “vicarious admissions”)
1. Admissions by partner (Rule 130, Sec. 29);
2. Admissions by agent or one who has a joint-interest with the
party (Rule 130, Sec. 29);
3. Admission of co-conspirator (Rule 130, Sec. 30);
4. Admission of privy of the party (Rule 130, Sec. 30).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
d) Admission by a co-partner or agent
• The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the
party may be given in evidence against such party
under the following requirements:
(1) That the partnership, agency or joint interest is established
by evidence other than the act or declaration;
(2) That the act/declaration must have been within the scope of
the partnership, etc;
(3) Such act/declaration must have been made during the
existence of the partnership, etc (Rule 130, Sec. 29).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
e) Admission by a 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 :
(1) The conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde;
(2) The admission was made during the existence of the
conspiracy; and
(3) The admission relates to the conspiracy itself.
(Rule 130, Sec. 30; Tamargo v. Antiporda, G.R. No. 177727,
19 January 2010).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
e) Admission by a conspirator

• This rule applies only to extra-judicial acts or declaration of a


co-conspirator, but NOT to testimony given on the stand at
the trial, where the defendant has the opportunity to cross-
examine the declarant. And while the testimony of
accomplices or confederates in crime is always subject to
grave suspicion, "coming as it does from a polluted source,"
and should be received with great caution and doubtingly
examined, it is nevertheless admissible and competent
(People v. Serrano, G.R. No. L-7973, 27 April 1959).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
f) 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.
• Requisites:
(1) There must be a relation of privity between the party and
the declarant;
(2) The admission was made by the declarant, as
predecessor in interest, while holding title to the property;
and
(3) The admission is in relation to said property (Rule 130, Sec.
31).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
f) Admission by privies

• Privity in estate may have arisen by: (1) succession; (2) by


acts mortis causa; or (3) by acts inter vivos.

• Illustration: AA, father of BB, while the former was alive,


openly told his acquaintances, that the land where his
house stood had already been sold to CC. Here, the
declaration by AA is NOT admissible against BB, because
the statement was made after AA held title to the land.
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
g) Admission by silence

• Requisites:
Any act or declaration made in the presence and within the
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, may be given in evidence against him, under the following
requisites:
(1) He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the other
person;
(2) He must have had the opportunity to deny it;
(3) He must have understood the statement.
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
g) Admission by silence

• Requisites:

(4) He must have an interest to object as he would naturally have


done if the statement was not true;
(5) The facts are within his knowledge; and
(6)The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is
material to the issue. (Rule 130, Sec. 32; People v. Ciobal, G.R. No.
86220, 20 April 1990; People v. Ranario, 49 Phil. 220)
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
g) Admission by silence

• When not applicable


• Accused’s refusal to be a witness during trial (Art. III, Sec. 17,
1987 Constitution).
• Silence during official investigation (Art. III, Sec. 12, 1987
Constitution; U. S. v. De la Cruz, 12 Phil., 87).
• Where the party had a justifiable reason to remain silent [e.g.
acting on advice of counsel]. (People v. Fong, G.R. No. L-7615,
14 March 1956).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
g) Admission by silence

•When applicable to statements made in writing


The rule on admission by silence applies to adverse
statements in writing if the party was carrying on a mutual
correspondence with the declarant. However, if there was no
such mutual correspondence, the rule is relaxed on the
theory that while the party would have immediately reacted by
a denial if the statements were orally made in his presence,
such prompt response can generally not be expected if the
party still has to resort to a written reply (Villanueva v.
Balaguer, G.R. No. 180197, 23 June 2009).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
g) Admission by silence

•Voluntary re-enactment.
Voluntary participation in the re-enactment of the crime
conducted by police is considered tacit admission of
complicity. In such cases, the accused actually committed
positive acts without protest or denial when he was free to
refuse. Had he not actually participated in the commission of
the offense for which he is charged, he would have protested
being made to take part in the reenactment thereof (People v.
Fong, G.R. No. L-7615, 14 March 1956).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
h) Confessions

• 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 (Rule 130, Sec. 33).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
h) Confessions

• Judicial confession - one made before a court


in which the case is pending and in the course of
legal proceedings therein; can sustain conviction
by itself.
• Requisites:
1. It must be a categorical acknowledgement of guilt;
2. It must be made by an accused in a criminal case; and
3. It is without any exculpatory statement or explanation.
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
h) Confessions

• Extrajudicial confession - one made in any


other place or occasion and cannot sustain a
conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the
corpus delicti. (Rule 133, Sec. 3).

• Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime; it is


the fact that a crime has actually been committed
(People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 180762, 4 March
2009).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
h) Confessions
• Extrajudicial confession
• Illustrations:
(a) In arson, the corpus delicti is generally satisfied by proof of
the bare occurrence of the fire, e.g., the charred remains of a
house burned down and of its having been intentionally
caused.

(b) In murder or homicide, the corpus delicti is the fact of death


(People v. Garcia, 99 Phil. 381), which may be proved even
circumstantially (People v. Sasota, 91 Phil. 111; People v. Moro
Ansang, 93 Phil. 44).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
h) Confessions
• Extrajudicial confession
• Illustrations:
(c) In robbery or theft, the fact of loss (People v. Niem, 75
Phil. 668).
(d) In an affray, the fact that pistol shots were heard and a
bystander was killed by one of the shots constitute
evidence of corpus delicti, which is the violent death of a
person, whether feloniously caused or not (People v.
Nocum, 77 Phil. 1018)
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
h) Confessions
• Extrajudicial confession
• Requisites of Extrajudicial Confession:
1. It must be voluntary;
2. It must be made with the assistance of a competent and
independent counsel;
3. It must be express; and
4. It must be in writing (People v. Domantay, G.R. No.
130612, 11 May 1999).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
h) Confessions
• Extrajudicial confession is not binding upon third parties
An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant,
is not admissible against his or her co-accused, and is
considered as hearsay against them.
The reason for this rule is that on a principle of good faith
and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are binding upon
himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and
declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but
also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts
of mere unauthorized stranger (Tamargo v. Awingan, G.R. No.
177727, 19 January 2010).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
h) Confessions
• Extrajudicial confession; when admissible against co-
accused
While the general rule is that an extra-judicial confession of
an accused is binding only upon himself and is not admissible
against his co-accused, it has been held that such a confession
is admissible against a co-accused where the confession is used
as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of
participation by the co-conspirator (People v. Condemna, L-
22426, 29 May 1968), and where the co-conspirator's
confession is corroborated by other evidence (People v.
Victor, G.R. No. 75154-55, 6February 1990).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
h) Confessions
• Extrajudicial confession not admissible when confessant
was not assisted by counsel
An extrajudicial confession executed without the assistance
of independent and competent counsel is inadmissible in
evidence. (People v. Velarde, G.R. No. 139333, 18 July 2002).
A municipal mayor cannot be considered as a competent
and independent counsel qualified to assist a person under
custodial investigation (People v. Velarde, supra).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
h) Confessions
• Extrajudicial confession v. res gestae
Where the verbal extrajudicial confession was made without
counsel, but it was spontaneously made by the accused
immediately after the assault, the same is admissible, not under
the confession rule, but as part of the res gestae (People v.
Tampus, G.R. No. L-44690, 28 March 1980).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
h) Confessions
• Statements during press-conference
The constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do
not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through
questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner
whereby accused orally admitted having committed a crime. The
rights under Sec. 12 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest
use of coercion by the State as would lead the accused to admit
something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily
telling the truth. (People v. Mantung, G.R. No. 130372, 20 July
1999).
ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
i) 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 similar thing at
another time(Rule 130, Sec. 34).
• However, such evidence may be received to
prove a specific intent or knowledge; identity,
plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage,
and the like (Rule 130, Sec. 34).
2006 BAR EXAMS
Admission of Guilt During Custodial
Investigation

Question:

What are the requirements in order that an


admission of guilt of an accused during a
custodial investigation be admitted in evidence?
(2.5%)
2006 BAR EXAMS
Admission of Guilt During Custodial
Investigation
Suggested Answer:

An admission of guilt during a custodial investigation is a


confession. To be admissible in evidence, the
requirements are: (1) the confession must be voluntary;
(2) the confession must be made with the assistance of
competent and independent counsel; (3) the confession
must be express; and (4) the confession must be in
writing (People v. Principe, 381 SCRA 642 [2002]).
2008 BAR EXAMS
Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases

Question:

Bembol was charged with rape. Bembol's father,


Ramil, approached Artemon, the victim's father,
during the preliminary investigation and offered P1
Million to Artemon to settle the case. Artemon
refused the offer.
2008 BAR EXAMS
Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases

Question:

a. During trial, the prosecution presented Artemon to


testify on Ramil's offer and thereby establish an
implied admission of guilt. Is Ramil's offer to settle
admissible in evidence? (3%)
2008 BAR EXAMS
Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases

Question:

b. During the pre-trial, Bembol personally offered to


settle the case for P1 Million to the private
prosecutor, who immediately put the offer on record
in the presence of the trial judge. Is Bembol's offer a
judicial admission of his guilt? (3%)
2008 BAR EXAMS
Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases
Suggested Answer:

a. The offer of Artemon is not admissible in evidence


against Bembol as an implied admission of guilt. To
be an implied admission of guilt, the offer must be
“an offer of compromise by the accused” (Sec. 27,
Rule 130, Rules of Court). The facts of the case do
not indicate that it was Bembol, the accused, who
made the offer.
2008 BAR EXAMS
Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases
Suggested Answer:

b. Bembol’s offer is a judicial admission. A judicial


admission is one that is verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case (Sec. 4, Rule 129, Rules o Court). Bembol is a
party to the case. The offer was made in the course
of a judicial proceeding.
2008 BAR EXAMS
Offer of Compromise in Criminal Cases
Suggested Answer:

An admission is judicial if made not only in the


pleadings, or by verbal or written manifestations in
the trial but also in the pre-trial of the case
(Programme, Inc. v. Province of Bataan, G.R. No.
144635, 226 June 2006). Under Sec. 27 of Rule 130,
the judicial admission could be considered as an
implied admission of guilt.
2008 BAR EXAMS
Oral Confession
Question:

The mutilated cadaver of a woman was discovered


near a creek. Due to witnesses attesting that he was
the last person seen with the woman when she was
still alive, Carlito was arrested within five hours after
the discovery of the cadaver and brought to the
police station. The crime laboratory determined that
the woman had been raped.
2008 BAR EXAMS
Oral Confession
Question:
While in police custody, Carlito broke down in the
presence of an assisting counsel and orally
confessed to the investigator that he had raped and
killed the woman, detailing the acts he had performed
up to his dumping of the body near the creek. He was
genuinely remorseful. During the trial, the State
presented the investigator to testify on the oral
confession of Carlito. Is the oral confession
admissible as evidence of guilt? (4%)
2008 BAR EXAMS
Oral Confession
Suggested Answer:
The oral confession is not admissible as evidence of guilt.
The confession is in the nature of an extrajudicial
confession before an investigator while under custodial
investigation. Hence, the statutory provisions under R.A.
No. 7438 (Sec. 2[d]) should be complied with. Under said
law, any extrajudicial confession made by a person
arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation shall
be in writing and signed by such person in the presence
of his counsel.
2008 BAR EXAMS
Oral Confession

Suggested Answer:

An oral confession does not comply with the


mandatory provisions of the law. Under R.A. No.
7438, the confession is inadmissible in evidence in
any proceeding (Sec. 2[d], R.A. No. 7438).
2009 BAR EXAMS
Doctrine of Adoptive Admission
Question:

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is


true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your
answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)

d. Under the doctrine of adoptive admission, a third


party's statement becomes the admission of the party
embracing or espousing it.
2009 BAR EXAMS
Doctrine of Adoptive Admission
Suggested Answer:

TRUE. The effect or consequence of the admission


will bind also the party who adopted or espoused the
same, as applied in Estrada v. Desierto, 356 SCRA
108 (2001). An adoptive admission is a party’s
reaction to a statement or action by another person
when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as
an admission of something stated or implied by the
other person.
2011 BAR EXAMS
Admission by a Co-conspirator
Question:

Henry testified that a month after the robbery, Asiong,


one of the accused, told him that Carlos was one of
those who committed the crime with him. Is Henry’s
testimony regarding what Asiong told him admissible
in evidence against Carlos?
2011 BAR EXAMS
Admission by a Co-conspirator
Question:

(A) No, since it is hearsay.


(B) No, since Asiong did not make the statement
during the conspiracy.
(C) Yes, since it constitutes admission against a co-
conspirator.
(D) Yes, since it part of the res gestae.
DNA
EVIDENCE
(ASKED IN 2009, 2010, AND 2012)
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

a) Meaning of DNA

• “DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of


molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body. The
totality of an individual's DNA is unique for the individual,
except identical twin. (Sec. 3 [b], A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC).
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

b) Applicable for DNA testing order

• Who may issue a DNA Testing Order?


• The appropriate court, at any time, either motu
proprio or on application of any person who has a
legal interest in the matter in litigation. (Sec. 4)
• The Rule on DNA Evidence does not preclude the
conduct of DNA testing, without need of a prior court
order, at the behest of any party, including law
enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is
commenced.
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)
b) Applicable for DNA testing order
• Conditions of issuance:
• (1) Due notice and hearing; and (2) a showing that:
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the
type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected
to DNA testing, but the results may require confirmation for good
reasons;
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new
information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may
consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA
testing.
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

b) Applicable for DNA testing order

• Contents of DNA Testing Order


• If the court finds that the requirements in Section 4 have been
complied with, the court shall –
(a) Order that biological samples be taken from any person or
crime scene evidence;
(b) Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to
protect the integrity of the biological sample, the testing
process and the reliability of the test results, and
(c) Issue an order requiring all parties to the case or
proceedings to witness the DNA testing to be conducted if
there not enough samples for confirmatory testing of the other
party (Section 5).
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

b) Applicable for DNA testing order


• The court my order that the result of the DNA testing be
simultaneously released to the parties. (Section 5).
• N.B.: An order granting the DNA testing shall be
immediately executory and shall not be appealable.
• Any petition for certiorari initiated therefrom shall not, in
any way, stay the implementation thereof, unless a higher
court issues an injunctive order (Section 5).
• The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be
construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any
component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a
result thereof.
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

c) Post-conviction DNA testing; remedy


• Court order is not required.
• This remedy is available to the prosecution or any
person convicted by final and executory judgment
provided that:
(a) a biological sample exists;
(b) such sample is relevant to the case; and
(c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or
modification of the judgment of conviction (Section 6)
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

c) Post-conviction DNA testing; remedy


• Remedy if the results are favorable to the convict
• File a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of
origin. A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member of said
courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the
petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate
orders.
• In case the court, after due hearing, finds the petition to be
meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the judgment of
conviction and order the release of the convict, unless
continued detention is justified for a lawful cause. (Section
10).
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

d) Assessment of probative value of DNA


evidence and admissibility
• Factors considered in the assessment of probative value of
DNA evidence:
(a) The chain of custody (i.e., handling and collection biological
samples; possibility of contamination of the samples)
(b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure
followed in analyzing the samples, the advantages and
disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the
scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

d) Assessment of probative value of DNA


evidence and admissibility
• Factors considered in the assessment of probative
value of DNA evidence:
xxx (c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by
any reputable standards-setting institution and the qualification of
the analyst who conducted the tests.
(d) The reliability of the testing results
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

d) Assessment of probative value of DNA


evidence and admissibility
• Factors considered in the assessment of probative value of
DNA evidence:
• N.B.: If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant
experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and
credibility must be properly established (Section 7[b])

• The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the


appreciation of evidence shall apply suppletorily in
assessing the probative value of DNA evidence (Section
7, par. 2).
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

d) Assessment of probative value of DNA


evidence and admissibility

• Evaluation of DNA Testing Results; Factors

(a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or


the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence;
(b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of
the other evidence presented in the case; and
(c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity
shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity (Section 9).
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

d) Assessment of probative value of DNA


evidence and admissibility

• Evaluation of DNA Testing Results; Factors

• If the value of the Probability of Paternity < 99.9%, the


results of the DNA testing = corroborative evidence.

• If the value of the Probability of Paternity > 99.9% or higher


= there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity
(Section 9[c]).
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

d) Assessment of probative value of DNA


evidence and admissibility
• DNA Testing Orders in paternity and filiation suits
• Is a prima facie showing of possible paternity necessary before a
court can issue a DNA testing order? Yes.

• In Lucas v. Lucas (G.R. No. 190710, 6 June 2011), the Supreme


Court felt the need to supplement Section 4 of the Rule on DNA
Evidence and ruled that since a DNA Testing Order could indeed
be likened to a “search,” it is proper that during hearings on
motions for DNA testing, the movant must present prima facie
evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

e) Rules on evaluation of reliability of the DNA


testing methodology
• Evaluation of the Reliability of DNA Testing
Methodology; Factors
(a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that
is, whether the theory or technique can be and has been
tested;
(b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the
principles or methods;
(c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by
the relevant scientific community;
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-
SC)

e) Rules on evaluation of reliability of the DNA


testing methodology
• Evaluation of the Reliability of DNA Testing
Methodology; Factors
(d) The existence and maintenance of standards and
controls to ensure the correctness of data generated;
(e) The existence of an appropriate reference population
database; and
(f) The general degree of confidence attributed to
mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles
and the significance and limitation of statistical calculations
used in comparing DNA profiles (Section 8).
2009 BAR EXAMS

Vallejo Standard
Question:

TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or


FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not
more than two (2) sentences. (5%)

The Vallejo standard refers to jurisprudential norms considered


by the court in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence.
xxx
2009 BAR EXAMS

Vallejo Standard
Suggested Answer:

TRUE. In People v. Vallejo, 382 SCRA 192 (2002), it was held


that in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts
should consider, among other things, the following data: how
the samples were collected, how they were handled, the
possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure
followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper
standards and procedures were followed in conducting the
tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the
tests.
2010 BAR EXAMS

Challenging Evidence Obtained Through DNA Testing


Question:

In a prosecution for rape, the defense relied on


Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) evidence showing that the
semen found in the private part of the victim was not identical
with that of the accused’s. As private prosecutor, how will you
dispute the veracity and accuracy of the results of the DNA
evidence? (3%)
2010 BAR EXAMS

Challenging Evidence Obtained Through DNA Testing


Suggested Answer:

As a private prosecutor, I will attempt to discredit the results


of the DNA test by questioning and possibly impugning the
integrity of the DNA profile by showing a flaw/error in
obtaining the biological sample, or in the chain of custody of
the biological sample obtained; the testing methodology
employed; the scientific standard observed; the forensic DNA
laboratory which conducted the test; and the qualification,
training and experience of the forensic personnel who
conducted the DNA testing.
2012 BAR EXAMS

Post-conviction DNA Testing


Question:
C, a convict, was able to get favorable results of a post-conviction DNA
testing showing that C could not have committed the crime. To gain
freedom, C may:

(A) file a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus before the court of origin.
(B) apply for full pardon.
(C) file a Motion to annul judgment of conviction on the ground of
fraud.
(D) file a Motion for new trial under Rule 121.
ELECTRONIC
EVIDENCE
(ASKED IN 2009, 2010, AND 2012)
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

a) Scope; coverage; meaning of electronic


evidence; electronic data message

• Scope
• The Rules on Electronic Evidence (“REE”) apply whenever an
electronic document or electronic data message is offered or used in
evidence (REE, Sec. 1).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

a) Scope; coverage; meaning of electronic


evidence; electronic data message
• Meaning of “electronic document”
• “Electronic document” refers to information or the
representation of information, data, figures, symbols or
other modes of written expression, described or however
represented:
• by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or
• by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received,
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically.
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

a) Scope; coverage; meaning of electronic


evidence; electronic data message

• Meaning of “electronic document”


• It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or
output, readable by sight or other means, which
accurately reflects the electronic data message or
electronic document. Under the REE, the term
“electronic document” is interchangeably with “electronic
data message.” (REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1[h]).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

a) Scope; coverage; meaning of electronic


evidence; electronic data message

• Meaning of “electronic data message.”


• “Electronic data message” refers to information generated,
sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar
means. (REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1[g]).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

a) Scope; coverage; meaning of electronic


evidence; electronic data message
•Meaning of “electronic signature.”
–“Electronic signature” refers to any distinctive mark,
characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing
the identity of a person and attached to or logically
associated with the electronic data message or electronic
document or any methodology or procedure employed or
adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such
person with the intention of authenticating, signing or
approving an electronic data message or electronic
document. An electronic signature includes digital
signatures.. (REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1[j]).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

b) Probative value of electronic documents or


evidentiary weight; method of proof

• Evidentiary weight of electronic documents

• Electronic evidence is considered as the functional


equivalent of paper-based documents. Whenever a rule
of evidence refers to the term writing, document, record,
instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing,
such term shall include an electronic document (REE,
Rule 3, Sec. 1)
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

b) Probative value of electronic documents or


evidentiary weight; method of proof

• Evidentiary weight of electronic documents

• The electronic document shall be regarded as the


equivalent of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight
or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately
(REE, Rule 4, Sec. 1).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

b) Probative value of electronic documents or


evidentiary weight; method of proof
• Evidentiary weight of electronic documents
• Factors for assessing evidentiary weight
In assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic document, the
following factors may be considered:
(a) The reliability of the manner or method in which it was
generated, stored or communicated, including but not limited to
input and output procedures, controls, tests and checks for
accuracy and reliability of the electronic data message or
document, in the light of all the circumstances as well as any
relevant agreement;
(b) The reliability of the manner in which its originator was
identified;
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

b) Probative value of electronic documents or


evidentiary weight; method of proof
• Evidentiary weight of electronic documents
• Factors for assessing evidentiary weight
In assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic
document, the following factors may be considered:
(c) The integrity of the information and communication system in
which it is recorded or stored, including but not limited to the
hardware and computer programs or software used as well as
programming errors;
(d) The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the
entry with the communication and information system;
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

b) Probative value of electronic documents or


evidentiary weight; method of proof
• Evidentiary weight of electronic documents
• Factors for assessing evidentiary weight
In assessing the evidentiary weight of an electronic
document, the following factors may be considered:
(e) The nature and quality of the information which went into the
communication and information system upon which the electronic
data message or electronic document was based; or
(f) Other factors which the court may consider as affecting the
accuracy or integrity of the electronic document or electronic data
message. (REE, Rule 7, Sec. 1).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

b) Probative value of electronic documents or


evidentiary weight; method of proof
• Evidentiary weight of electronic documents
• Integrity of an information and communication
system
In any dispute involving the integrity of the information and
communication system in which an electronic document or
electronic data message is recorded or stored, the court may
consider, among others, the following factors:
(a) Whether the information and communication system or
other similar device was operated in a manner that did not affect
the integrity of the electronic document, and there are no other
reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the information and
communication system;
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

b) Probative value of electronic documents or


evidentiary weight; method of proof
• Evidentiary weight of electronic documents
• Integrity of an information and communication system
(b) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored by a
party to the proceedings with interest adverse to that of the party
using it; or
(c) Whether the electronic document was recorded or stored in
the usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not
a party to the proceedings and who did not act under the control
of the party using it. (REE, Rule 7, Sec. 2).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

b) Probative value of electronic documents or


evidentiary weight; method of proof
• Method of Proof
All matters relating to the admissibility and evidentiary weight of
an electronic document may be established by an affidavit stating
facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on
authentic records (REE, Rule 9).
• The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence of the
affiant to testify on the matters contained therein (REE, Rule 9,
Sec. 1).
• The affiant shall be made to affirm the contents of the affidavit in
open court and may be cross-examined as a matter of right by
the adverse party (REE, Rule 9, Sec. 2).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)
c) Authentication of electronic documents and
electronic signatures
• Authentication of electronic documents
• Manner of authentication: Before any private electronic
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person
purported to have signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices
as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for
authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document;
or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the
satisfaction of the judge. (REE, Rule 5, Sec. 2).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

c) Authentication of electronic documents and


electronic signatures
• Authentication of electronic documents

Proof of electronically notarized document: a document


electronically notarized in accordance with the rules
promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as
a public document and proved as a notarial document
under the Rules of Court. (REE, Rule 5, Sec. 2).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)
c) Authentication of electronic documents and
electronic signatures
• Authentication of electronic signatures.
• An authenticated electronic signature under the REE is
admissible in evidence as the functional equivalent of the
signature of a person on a written document. (REE, Rule 6, Sec.
1).
• An electronic signature may be authenticated in any of the
following manner:
(a) By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a
digital signature and verify the same;
(b) By any other means provided by law; or
(c) By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the
genuineness of the electronic signature. (REE, Rule 6, Sec. 2).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)

d) Electronic documents vis-a-vis the hearsay


rule
• Business records as exception to the hearsay
rule

• “Business records” include records of any business,


institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling
of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit, or for
legitimate or illegitimate purposes. (REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1[b]).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)
d) Electronic documents vis-a-vis the hearsay
rule
• Business records as exception to the hearsay rule
• Inapplicability of the hearsay rule. – A memorandum, report,
record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions,
opinions, or diagnoses
• made by electronic, optical or other similar means at or near the time
of or from transmission or supply of information by a person with
knowledge thereof, and
• kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and
• such was the regular practice to make the memorandum, report,
record, or data compilation by electronic, optical or similar means, all
of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified
witnesses, is excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence. (REE, Rule
8, Sec. 1).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)
d) Electronic documents vis-a-vis the hearsay
rule

• Business records as exception to the hearsay rule

• However, the hearsay rule may be applied to business


records as defined under the REE by presenting evidence
of the untrustworthiness of:
• the source of information;
• the method or circumstances of the preparation, transmission or
storage thereof. (REE, Rule 8, Sec. 2).
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)
e) Audio, photographic, video and ephemeral
evidence
• Audio, video and similar evidence shall be
proven:
• by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same
or has personal knowledge thereof.
• In the absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other
competent evidence may be admitted.
• If the foregoing communications are recorded or
embodied in an electronic document, then the provisions
of Rule 5 on authentication of electronic documents shall
apply.
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
(A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC)
e) Audio, photographic, video and ephemeral
evidence
• Meaning of “ephemeral electronic
communication”
“Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone
conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming
audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
retained.(REE, Rule 2, Sec. 1[k]).
2003 BAR EXAMS
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

Admissibility; Original Document under the Best Evidence


Rule

Question:

•a) State the rule on the admissibility of an electronic evidence.

•b) When is an electronic evidence regarded as being the


equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence
Rule? 4%
2003 BAR EXAMS
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

Suggested Answer:

(a) Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term


writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum
or any other form of writing, such term shall be
deemed to include an electronic document as defined
in these Rules. (Sec. 1 of Rule 3, Rules of Electronic
Evidence effective August 1, 2001).
2003 BAR EXAMS
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
Suggested Answer:

An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it


complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the
Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the
manner prescribed by these Rules. (Sec. 2 of Rule 3, Id.).
The authenticity of any private electronic document must be
proved by evidence that it had been digitally signed and other
appropriate security measures have been applied. (Sec. 2 of
Rule 5, Id.).
2003 BAR EXAMS
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

Suggested Answer:

(b) An electronic document shall be regarded as the


equivalent of an original document under the Best
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately (Sec. 1 of Rule 4).
2012 BAR EXAMS
Ephemeral Electronic Conversation
Question:
Under the Rules of Electronic Evidence, "ephemeral
electronic conversation" refers to the following, except:

(A) text messages;


(B) telephone conversations;
(C) faxed document;
(D) online chatroom sessions.
OFFER AND
OBJECTION
(ASKED IN 1997 AND 2003)
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 (Rule
132, Sec. 34).

Due process requires a formal offer of evidence for the


benefit of the adverse party, the trial court, and the appellate
courts. This gives the adverse party the opportunity to
examine and oppose the admissibility of the evidence. When
evidence has not been formally offered, it should not be
considered by the court in arriving at its decision. (Republic v.
Espinosa, et al., G.R. No. 186603, 5 April 2017)
WHEN TO MAKE AN OFFER

Testimonial evidence - must be offered at the time


the witness is called to testify.

Documentary and object evidence - must 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 (Rule 132,
Sec. 35).
OBJECTION

• Rule: grounds for objections must always be


specified. (Rule 132, Sec. 36, par. 4).
• When to make objections:
1. Testimonial evidence - must be objected to immediately
after the offer is made. (Rule 132, Sec. 36, par. 1).
2. Objection to a question during oral examination - must
be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become
reasonably apparent (Rule 132, Sec. 36, par. 2).
3. Documentary evidence - shall be objected to within three
(3) days after notice of the offer unless a different period is
allowed by the court (Rule 132, Sec. 36, par. 3).
REPETITION OF AN OBJECTION

• Repeating an objection is NOT necessary 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. (Rule 132, Sec. 37).

• In such case, it is sufficient for the adverse party to


record his continuing objection to such class of
questions. Rule 132, Sec. 37).
RULING

• When made: Immediately after the objection is


made.

• Exception: Unless the court desires to take a reasonable


time to inform itself on the question presented (Note: 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).
RULING

• Content of ruling: The reason for sustaining or


overruling an objection need NOT be stated.
(In contrast, objections made by lawyers must
always specify the grounds therefor.)

• Exception: If 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.
RULING

Erroneous rulings on admissibility of evidence


are:
(1) Considered errors in judgment, not of jurisdiction;
(2) Interlocutory in nature;
(3) May not be the subject of a separate appeal or review on
certiorari;
(4) Must be assigned as errors and reviewed in the appeal
properly taken from the decision rendered by the trial court on
the merits of the case. (Triplex Enterprises, Inc. v. PNB-
Republic Bank, et al. G.R.,No. 151007, 17 July 2006).
STRIKING OUT OF AN 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 (Rule 132, Sec. 39).

• On proper motion, the court may also order the


striking out of answers which are incompetent,
irrelevant, or otherwise improper (Rule 132, Sec. 39).
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 (Rule 132, Sec. 40).
Thank you!
CONSOLIDATED TIPS
REMEDIAL LAW

2017 BAR EXAMINATIONS


BY:
ATTY. RAMON S. ESGUERRA
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF
CASES VS. RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
The constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases is not
limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all
parties in all cases, including civil and administrative cases,
and in all proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial
hearings. While the concept of speedy disposition is relative or
flexible, such that a mere mathematical reckoning of the time
involved is not sufficient, the right to the speedy disposition of
a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated when
the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the
trial are asked for and secured; or when without cause or
justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse
without the party having his case tried. (People v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165 & G.R. No. 189063, 11
December 2013, J. Bersamin)
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF
CASES VS. RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
A person's right to a speedy disposition of his case is
guaranteed under Section 16, Article III of the Constitution.
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies. This constitutional right is not limited
to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all
parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative in nature, as
well as in all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial. In
this accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious
action of all officials who are tasked with the administration
of justice. (Inocentes v. People, G.R. No. 205963-64, 7 July
2016; J. Peralta)
ENRILE V. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. NO. 213847, 18 AUGUST 2015
J. BERSAMIN
RIGHT TO BAIL
Nonetheless, in now granting Enrile’s petition for certiorari, the
Court is guided by the earlier mentioned principal purpose of
bail, which is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at
the trial, or whenever so required by the court. The Court is
further mindful of the Philippines’ responsibility in the
international community arising from the national commitment
under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This national commitment to uphold the fundamental human


rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person
has authorized the grant of bail not only to those charged in
criminal proceedings but also to extraditees upon a clear and
convincing showing: (1) that the detainee will not be a flight
risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there exist
special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances.
ENRILE V. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. NO. 213847, 18 AUGUST 2015
J. BERSAMIN
Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of
the crime charged, should be allowed independently of the
merits of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is
clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger
his life. Indeed, denying him bail despite imperiling his
health and life would not serve the true objective of
preventive incarceration during the trial. It is relevant to
observe that granting provisional liberty to Enrile will then
enable him to have his medical condition be properly
addressed and better attended to by competent physicians
in the hospitals of his choice. This will not only aid in his
adequate preparation of his defense but, more importantly,
will guarantee his appearance in court for the trial.
PEOPLE V. VALDEZ
G.R. NOs. 216007-09, 8 DECEMBER 2015
J. PERALTA
FACTS: Accused Valdez was charged with a complex crime
of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of
Official/Public Documents involving an amount that exceeds
P22,000.00.

ISSUE: Whether or not Valdez is entitled to bail.

HELD: YES. The appropriate rule is to grant bail as a matter


of right to an accused who is charged with a complex crime
of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of
Official/Public Documents involving an amount that exceeds
P22,000.00.
PEOPLE V. VALDEZ
G.R. NOs. 216007-09, 8 DECEMBER 2015
J. PERALTA
At this point, there is no certainty that accused Valdez would
be found guilty of Malversation of Public Funds thru
Falsification of Official/Public Documents involving an
amount that exceeds P22,000.00. Falsification, like an
aggravating circumstance, must be alleged and proved
during the trial. For purposes of bail proceedings, it would
be premature to rule that the supposed crime committed is a
complex crime since it is only when the trial has terminated
that falsification could be appreciated as a means of
committing malversation. Further, it is possible that only the
elements of one of the constituent offenses, i.e., either
malversation or falsification, or worse, none of them, would
be proven after full-blown trial.
PEOPLE V. VALDEZ
G.R. NOs. 216007-09, 8 DECEMBER 2015
J. PERALTA
It would be the height of absurdity to deny Valdez the right to bail and
grant her the same only after trial if it turns out that there is no
complex crime committed. Likewise, it is unjust to give a stamp of
approval in depriving the accused person's constitutional right to bail
for allegedly committing a complex crime that is not even considered
as inherently grievous, odious and hateful. To note, Article 48 of the
RPC on complex crimes does not change the nature of the constituent
offenses; it only requires the imposition of the maximum period of the
penalty prescribed by law. When committed through falsification of
official/public documents, the RPC does not intend to classify
malversation as a capital offense. Otherwise, the complex crime of
Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Official/Public
Documents involving an amount that exceeds P22,000.00 should have
been expressly included in Republic Act No. 7659. If truly a non-
bailable offense, the law should have already considered it as a special
complex crime like robbery with rape, robbery with homicide, rape with
homicide, and kidnapping with murder or homicide, which have
prescribed penalty of reclusion perpetua.
PROBABLE CAUSE
The determination of probable cause to charge a person in
court for a criminal offense is exclusively lodged in the
Executive Branch of the Government, through the
Department of Justice. Initially, the determination is done by
the investigating public prosecutor, and on review by the
Secretary of Justice or his duly authorized subordinate. The
courts will respect the determination, unless the same shall
be shown to have been made in grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Caterpillar, Inc.
v. Manolo P. Samson, G.R. No. 205972 & G.R. NO. 164352, 9
November 2016, J. Bersamin)
PROBABLE CAUSE
Moreover, the courts could intervene in the determination of
probable cause only through the special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, not by appeal
through the petition for review under Rule 43. Thus, the
Court of Appeals could not reverse or undo the findings and
conclusions on probable cause by the Secretary of Justice
except upon clear demonstration of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
committed by the Secretary of Justice. (Caterpillar, Inc. v.
Manolo P. Samson, supra.)
PROBABLE CAUSE
The discretion of the Office of the Ombudsman in the
determination of probable cause to charge a respondent
public official or employee cannot be interfered with in the
absence of a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Hilario P.
Soriano v. Deputy Ombudsman For Luzon Victor C.
Fernandez, GR No. 168157, 19 August 2015, J. Bersamin)
CIVIL ASPECT OF
CRIMINAL ACTIONS
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged
shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action. (Rules of
Court, Rule 111, Section 1)

Exceptions to the above rule:


• the offended party waives the civil action;
• the offended party reserves the right to institute it
separately; or
• the offended party institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action. (Rules of Court, Rule 111, Section 1)
CIVIL ASPECT OF
CRIMINAL ACTIONS
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil
action shall be made before the prosecution starts
presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording
the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such
reservation. (Rules of Court, Rule 111, Section 1)

As a general rule, the prosecution cannot appeal or bring


error proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of the
defendant in a criminal case. The reason is that a judgment
of acquittal is immediately final and executory, and the
prosecution is barred from appealing lest the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy be violated. (People and
AAA v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 183652, 25 February 2015,
J. Peralta)
CIVIL ASPECT OF
CRIMINAL ACTIONS
Despite acquittal, however, either the offended party or the
accused may appeal, but only with respect to the civil
aspect of the decision. Or, said judgment of acquittal may be
assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court showing that the lower court, in acquitting
the accused, committed not merely reversible errors of
judgment, but also exercised grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or a denial of
due process, thereby rendering the assailed judgment null
and void.16 If there is grave abuse of discretion, granting
petitioner’s prayer is not tantamount to putting private
respondents in double jeopardy. (People and AAA v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 183652, 25 February 2015, J. Peralta)
CIVIL ASPECT OF
CRIMINAL ACTIONS
If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is
an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may
be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor
General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the
People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended
party or complainant may not take such appeal. However,
the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil
aspect despite the acquittal of the accused. (People and
AAA v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 183652, 25 February 2015,
J. Peralta)
PEOPLE VS. JUGUETA
G.R. NO. 202124, 5 APRIL 2016
J. PERALTA
FACTS: Accused-Appellant Jugueta, with two others, stripped off the
sack walling of Divina’s hut, which he considers his residence. In the
hut were his wife and their four children. Jugueta ordered Divina to
step out of his house. When Divina refused, Jugueta and his
companions shot at them and hit his two children. The two children
died. Accused-Appellant and his companions were charged with two
counts of murder and multiple attempted murders on two separate
Informations.

However, the two Informations filed against accused failed to comply


with the requirement in Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Court that an information must charge only one offense. Accused-
appellant entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment and failed to
move for the quashal of the Informations, Furthermore, in convicting
accused-appellant, the trial court used the terms "Double Murder" and
"Multiple Attempted Murder" in its Judgment.
PEOPLE VS. JUGUETA
G.R. NO. 202124, 5 APRIL 2016
J. PERALTA
ISSUE: Whether accused-appellant waived his right to object to
the defective informations?

HELD: YES. As a general rule, a complaint or information must


charge only one offense, otherwise, the same is defective.
However, since accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty
during arraignment and failed to move for the quashal of the
Informations, he is deemed to have waived his right to question
the same. Section 9 of Rule 117 provides that "[t]he failure of
the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before
he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he
did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in
said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except
those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b),
(g), and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule."
PLEA BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS UNDER SEC.
23 OF R.A. NO. 9165
ESTIPONA v. LOBRIGO
G.R. No. 226679, 15 August 2017
J. Peralta

ISSUE: Whether the prohibition to enter into plea bargaining


agreements under Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is
unconstitutional.

HELD: YES. Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165 is


unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making
authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
PLEA BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS UNDER SEC.
23 OF R.A. NO. 9165
In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as "a
process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a
mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court
approval." There is give-and-take negotiation common in plea
bargaining. 50 The essence of the agreement is that both the
prosecution and the defense make concessions to avoid
potential losses. Properly administered, plea bargaining is to
be encouraged because the chief virtues of the system - speed,
economy, and finality – can benefit the accused, the offended
party, the prosecution, and the court. Considering the presence
of mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea bargaining neither
create a right nor take away a vested right. Instead, it operates
as a means to implement an existing right by regulating the
judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by
substantive law and for justly administering remedy and
redress for a disregard or infraction of them.
EFFECT OF DENIAL OF
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO v. PEOPLE
G. R. No. 220598, 19 July 2016
J. Bersamin

ISSUE: Whether the special civil action of certiorari is the


proper remedy to assail the denial of the demurrers to
evidence.

HELD: YES. The special civil action for certiorari is generally


not proper to assail such an interlocutory order issued by the
trial court because of the availability of another remedy in the
ordinary course of law. Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of the
Rules of Court expressly provides that “the order denying the
motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the
demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by
certiorari before judgment.”
PRINCIPAL ACTION IS REQUIRED IN THE
ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION TO ENJOIN A PARTY FROM
INSTITUTING CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS
As an ancillary and preventive remedy, a writ of preliminary
injunction may be resorted to by a party to protect or
preserve his rights during the pendency of the principal
action, and for no other purpose. Such relief will accordingly
protect the ability of the court to render a meaningful
decision; it will further serve to guard against a change of
circumstances that will hamper or prevent the granting of
proper relief after a trial on the merits. Verily, its essential
function is to preserve the status quo between the parties
until the merits of the case can be heard. (BPI v.
Hontanosas, G.R. No. 157163, 25 June 2014, J. Bersamin,
citing Saulog v. Court of Appeals [262 SCRA 51, 1996])
BPI V. HONTANOSAS
G.R. NO. 157163, 25 JUNE 2014
J. BERSAMIN

FACTS: Spouses Silverio et al filed a complaint against


Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) for the declaration of
nullity of the promissory notes, real estate and chattel
mortgages and continuing surety agreement the parties had
executed. They further sought damages and applied for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of preliminary
injunction to prevent the petitioner from foreclosing on the
mortgages against their properties.
BPI V. HONTANOSAS
G.R. NO. 157163, 25 JUNE 2014
J. BERSAMIN

ISSUE: Whether the issuance of the writ of preliminary


injunction was proper.

HELD: NO. The issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction


upon the application of the respondents was improper. They
had admittedly constituted the real estate and chattel
mortgages to secure the performance of their loan
obligation to the petitioner, and, as such, they were fully
aware of the consequences on their rights in the properties
given as collaterals should the loan secured be unpaid. The
foreclosure of the mortgages would be the remedy provided
by law for the mortgagee to exact payment.
BPI V. HONTANOSAS
G.R. NO. 157163, 25 JUNE 2014
J. BERSAMIN
As a general rule, the courts will not issue writs of prohibition or
injunction – whether preliminary or final – in order to enjoin or restrain
any criminal prosecution. But there are extreme cases in which
exceptions to the general rule have been recognized, including: (1) when
the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the
constitutional rights of the accused; (2) when it is necessary for the
orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of
actions; (3) when there is a prejudicial question that is sub judice; (4)
when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; (5)
when the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; (6)
when double jeopardy is clearly apparent; (7) when the court has no
jurisdiction over the offense; (8) when it is a case of persecution rather
than prosecution; (9) when the charges are manifestly false and
motivated by the lust for vengeance; and (10) when there is clearly no
prima faciecase against the accused and a motion to quash on that
ground has been denied. However, the respondents did not sufficiently
show that Civil Case No. CEB-26468 came under any of the foregoing
exceptions. Hence, the issuance by the RTC of the writ of preliminary
injunction to enjoin the petitioner from instituting criminal complaints for
violation of BP No. 22 against the respondents was unwarranted.
WRIT OF CONTINUING
MANDAMUS
Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court
in an environmental case directing any agency or
instrumentality of the government or officer
thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed
by final judgment which shall remain effective
until judgment is fully satisfied. (A.M. No. 09-6-8-
SC, otherwise known as “Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases,” Rule 1, Section 4[c])
WRIT OF CONTINUING
MANDAMUS
Requisites:
1. An agency or instrumentality of the government or
officer thereof:
a) unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the
law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust or station in connection with the enforcement or
violation of an environmental law rule or regulation or a
right therein, or
b) unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of
such right;
2. there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law. (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 8)
RULES ON INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY LITIGATION
Special Commercial Courts in Quezon City, Manila, Makati,
and Pasig shall have authority to act on applications for the
issuance of writs of search and seizure in civil actions for
violations of the Intellectual Property Code, which writs
shall be enforceable nationwide. (A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC,
otherwise known as “Rules of Procedure for Intellectual
Property Rights Cases,” Rule 2, Section 2)

Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, the Special


Commercial Courts in the judicial regions where the
violation of intellectual property rights occurred shall have
concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of search and seizure.
(Id.)