evidence version binding

8/10/2019 Evidence Version Binding

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evidence-version-binding 1/49

EVIDENCE

Introducon

Evidence - the means, sanconed by these rules, of

ascertaining in a judicial proceeding, the truth

respecng a maer of fact. (Rule 128, ec. 1.!

Scope of applicability – rules of e"idence shall be

the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings,

e#cept as other$ise pro"ided by la$ or these rules.

(Rule 128, ec 2.!

Notes: The Rules on Evidence apply only when thereis going to be a trial. Note that there can be a

judgment on pleadings, by confession, consent and compromise etc.

IN CIVIL CASES. Mere denial in the answer in a C!" C#$E will not present a probandum henceno need for the court to try the case. $uch general denial will be considered as an admission.

IN CRIMINAL CASES , %e have to wait un&l the accused enters a plea. This &me a general denial is allowed. f the accused enters a plea of guilty there is no probandum. 'owever in CRMN#"C#$E$, the court could s&ll try the case if the caseinvolves a heinous crime.

The Rules on evidence are not self(e)ecu&ng. $o the rule is any evidence submi*ed will be admi*ed so long as there is no objec&on. This

principle is only for the purpose of admissibility. t does not mean that the court will ta+e theseirrelevant evidence in evalua&ng on the merits of the case.DIFFERENCE IN RULES ON EVIDENCE IN CRIIN!L

C!SES !ND CIVIL C!SES

"!SIS Cri#inalCa$e Civil Ca$e

%uantum of

&roof

&roof 'eyond

Reasonable

oubt

&reponderance

of e"idence

enial )eneral

enial

*llo$ed

+ust be pecic

enial

ithdra$al of

&lea*dmission

ithdra$n

plea is

inadmissible

/udicial

*dmission

$ithdra$n

becomes an

e#trajudicialadmission

0ross

#aminaon in

ummary

&rocedure

*pplicable ot applicable

3uiponderance

Rule

*ccused is

ac3uied

&arty $ho loses

is the one $ho

has burden of

proof

&resence of +ore than 4ne su5ces

0ircumstanal

"idence

one is

re3uired

&ri"iliged

0ommunicaon-

r.-&aent

ot

applicable

*pplicable

0ompulsion as a

$itness

0annot

compel

accused to

be a $itness

o prohibion,

rules pro"ides

only limitaons

Evidenary %rivile&e' entles the pri"ilege holder to

$ithhold competent e"idence and, in some

circumstances, to pre"ent others from re"ealing

such e"idence. 6he pri"ilege is granted $hen the

protected interest is considered important enough

to out$eigh the concern $ith determining the

truth. 6he pri"ilege holder need not be a party to

the proceeding in 3ueson. 7nlie a dis3ualicaon

a pri"ilege can be $ai"ed. &ri"ileges are o9en

intended to preser"e condenal relaonships.

E(ecuve %rivile&e' members of the e#ecu"e

branch of go"ernment cannot legally be forced todisclose their condenal communicaons $hen

such disclosure $ould ad"ersely a:ect the

operaons or procedures of the e#ecu"e branch.

F!C)U %RO"!NDU v$* F!C)U %RO"!NS

actum -robandum( proposi&on to be established.The facts in issue.actum -robans( materials evidencing the

proposi&onNotes: 1. n both C!" and CRMN#" cases, the

probandum contained in the pleadings could bechanged in the pre(trial order. 'owever, with

respect to CRMN#" C#$E$, the pre(trial order$'/0"1 N/T substan&ally change theaccusa&onindictment contained in the informa&on,otherwise the case will be dismissed.

2. # court can validly try a fact in issue notraised in the pleadings or pre(trial order. Rule 23

provides that a fact in issue may be raised with thee)press or implied consent of the par&es during thetrial 4#mendment to conform to evidence5

3. #scertainment of probandum does notapply in special proceedings. 4i.e. f there is a

pe&&on for probate of a will, even if there is no

opposi&on the peoner is sll re3uired by la$ topro"e that the $ill has been duly e#ecuted in

accordance $ith the 0i"il 0ode!

EVIDENCE v$* %ROOF

Proof- is the e6ect of evidence. t is the proba&vee6ect of evidence and is the convic&on or

persuasion of the mind resul&ng from aconsidera&on of the la*er.Evidence- is the cause necessary to establish proof.

I* !d#i$$ibility

!* Relevance –



6he e"idence has such a relaon to the fact in issue

as to induce belief in its e#istence or non-e#istence.

"idence on collateral maers shall not be allo$ed,

e#cept $hen it tends in any reasonable degree to

establish the probability or improbability of the fact

in issue. (Rule 128, ecs. ; and <.!

( n conclusion, relevancy is not determined by lawnor the rules of court. t is determined purely by "/7C."* Co#petence –

6he e"idence is not e#cluded by the la$ or the rules

(Rule 128, ec. ;.!

o not confuse 04+&66 =6 from

04+&66 >=0. 6he 04+&60?

66 of e"idence applies to the 66=+4?

of the 3ualied $itness.

$ince admissii!it" of evidence isdetermined by its relevance and competence,admissibility is therefore an a6air of logic and law./n the other hand, the weight to be given to suchevidence depends on judicial evalua&on within theguidelines provided in Rule 288 and the

jurisprudence laid down by the court. 4-eople vs.Turco, 93335

Re!evant evidence is one that has any valuein reason as tending to prove any ma*er probablein an ac&on. Evidence is said to be material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue as determined by the rules of substan&ve law and pleadings, whilecompetent evidence is one that is not e)cluded by law in a par&cular case. 4:au&sta vs. #parece, 2;;<5E(clu$ionary Rule$ under t+e ,-./ Con$tuon

,* Sec$* 0 1 23 !rt* III – 6he right of the people to be

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and

e:ects against unreasonable searches and

sei@ures of $hate"er nature and for any

purpose shall be in"iolable, and no search

$arrant or $arrant of arrest shall issue e#cept

upon probable cause to be determined

personally by the judge a9er e#aminaon under

oath or a5rmaon of the complainant and the

$itnesses he may produce, and parcularly

describing the place to be searched and the

persons or things to be sei@ed.

6he pri"acy of communicaon andcorrespondence shall be in"iolable e#cept upon

la$ful order of the court, or $hen public safety

or order re3uires other$ise as prescribed by

la$.

*ny e"idence obtained in "iolaon of this or the

preceding secon shall be inadmissible for any

purpose in any proceeding.

0* Sec* ,03 !rt III – *ny person under in"esgaon

for the commission of an o:ense shall ha"e the

right to be informed of his right to remain silent

and to ha"e competent and independent

counsel preferably of his o$n choice. =f the

person cannot a:ord the ser"ices of counsel, he

must be pro"ided $ith one. 6hese rights

cannot be $ai"ed e#cept in $ring and in the

presence of counsel. o torture, force

"iolence, threat, inmidaon, or any othe

means, $hich "iate the free $ill, shall be used

against him. ecret detenon places, solitary

incommunicado, or other similar forms o

detenon are prohibited.

*ny confession or admission obtained in

"iolaon of this or econ 1A hereof shall be

inadmissible in e"idence against him.

2* Sec* ,/3 !rt III B o person shall be compelled to

be a $itness against himself.

6his right is recogni@ed under the Rules on

"idence, $hich pro"ides that, it is the right of a

$itness not to gi"e an ans$er $hich $ill tend to

subject him to a penalty for an o:ense unless

other$ise pro"ided by la$. Cec. ; (<!, Rule 1;2

R40!

NO)ES !ND COEN)S4 6he human body

could be used as e"idence $ithout "iolang the

right. +echanical acts $ithout the use o

intelligence do not fall $ithin the scope of the

protecon. ome of the acts $hich are not co"ered

by the right of self-incriminaon are the follo$ingD

a* Eingerprinng, photographing and

para5n tesng, physical e#aminaon. (7.. ". 6ang,

2; &hil. 1<FG!

b* &hysical e#aminaon of a $oman

accused of adultery to determine if she is pregnant.

(7.. ". 4n uy Hon, ;I &hil. A;FJ >illaKor "

ummers, <1 &hil. I2!

c* 7ndergoing ultra-"iolet rays e#aminaon

to determine presence of Kourescent po$der on

the hands. (&eople ". 6ranca, ;F 0R* <FF!

d* ubpoena direcng go"ernment o5cials

to produce o5cial documents or public records in

their custody.

e* EiLng the accused foot o"er a foot print

puLng on a pair of trousers, etc.

Statutory Rule$ of E(clu$ion

,* Sec* 05,3 NIRC – *n instrument, document or

paper $hich is re3uired by la$ to be stampedand $hich has been signed, issued, accepted or

transferred $ithout being duly stamped, shal

not be recorded, nor shall it or any copy thereo

or any record of transfer of the same be

admied or used in e"idence in any court un

the re3uisite stamp or stamps shall ha"e been

a5#ed thereto and cancelled.

0* R*!* 6055 78ire'tappin& !ct9 –

Sec* ,* =t shall be unla$ful for any person, no

being authori@ed by all the pares to any

pri"ate communicaon or spoen $ord, to tap



any $ire or cable, or by using any other de"ice

or arrangement, to secretly o"erhear, intercept,

or record such communicaon or spoen $or

by using a de"ice commonly no$n as a

ictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone or

$alie-talie or tape recorder, or ho$e"er

other$ise described. # #

Sec* 6* *ny communicaon or spoen $ord, or

the e#istence, contents, substance, purport,

e:ect, or meaning of the same or any part

thereof, or any informaon therein contained,

obtained or secured by any person in "iolaon

of the preceding secons of this *ct shall not be

admissible in e"idence in any judicial, 3uasi-

judicial, legisla"e or administra"e hearing or

in"esgaon.

#n e)tension telephone cannot be placed inthe same category as a 1ictaphone, dictograph or the other devices enumerated in $ec. 2 of R# =933as the use thereof cannot be considered as>tapping? the wire or cable of a telephone line.47aanan vs. #C, 2;@A5

R# =933 e)pressly ma+es tape recordings of tapped conversa&ons inadmissible in evidenceabsent a clear showing that both par&es to the

phone conversa&ons allowed the recording.4$alcedo(/rtaBe vs. C#, 2;;=5E:CLUSION!R; RULES under t+e RULES OF COUR)

,* 'est "idence Rule

0* &arole "idence

2* Hearsay Rule

#i$more%s A&iom of Admissii!it"

> None but facts having ra&onal proba&ve value areadmissible?( =MM76R*6=4D n a trial for homicide,the fact is o6ered that the accused was reDuested,with others, to touch the corpse of the murdered man to see if blood owed, but that he refused todo soF t'is is admissi!e , not because the owing or reten&on of the blood at the guilty manGs touchwould be ra&onally eviden&al of his guilt, but because his refusal to do could cons&tute a lin+ tothe chain of evidence necessary to produce a moral convic&on of guilt.> #ny fact having ra&onal proba&ve value is

admissible, unless some speciHc rule forbids itsadmission?( =MM76R*6=4D n an issue involving forgery, the disposi&on of the personGs character asto acts of honesty or dishonesty is of some ra&onal

proba&ve value towards showing that he did or did not do the actF it is therefore admissible, but thiscan only be done if the accused steps forward Hrst and adduces evidence of his good moral character.

Irre!evant vs. Incom(etent vs. Inadmissi!e vs.

Immateria! Evidence

Irre!evant ( no proba"e "alueJ o tendency in

reason to establish the probability or improbability

of a fact in issue. =t does not directly relate to a fact

in issue.

N.:. #ll facts and circumstances whicha6ord reasonable inferences or throw light upon the

probability of ma*er or ma*ers contested areadmissible in evidence, 0N"E$$ e)cluded by someestablished principle of evidence, such as 'E#R$#IE!1ENCE R0"E, R0"E /N -#R/"E E!1ENCE and:E$T E!1ENCE R0"E.

Co!!atera! Ma)ers( ma*ers other than the facts in issue and which are o6ered as a basismerely for inference as to the e)istence or non(e)istence of the facts in issue. These are not allowedunless sa&sfy #"" the reDuirements of relevancy.

ILL*S+RA+I,NS:

a. nger mars, foot prints and a bat le9 by

the accused in the place of the crime

b* 6he resemblance of a child to his alleged

father to pro"e paternity of the laer

c* 'loodstains on the clothing of the person

charged $ith a crime

d* 6he destrucon or fabricaon o

e"idence

e* Elight of the accused. (.'. on-Kight is

not conclusi"e proof of innocence!

f* elay in the idencaon of "icmNs

assailant

Incom(etent- e)cluded by the rules or any lawInadmissi!e- not competent and irrele"ant

Immateria!- the o:ered e"idenal fact is directed to

pro"e some probandum $hich is not

properly in issue. (.'.- 6he rules on

substan"e la$ and of pleading determine

immateriality!

Materia! evidence- proves a main factwhich is the subject of the inDuiry or anycircumstance which tends to prove that fact or any

fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate orstrengthen the tes&mony rela&ve to the subject ofinDuiry or which legi&mately a6ects the credibilityof any witness who tes&Hes.Direct v$* Circu#$tanal Evidence

irect- Evidence that directly proves a fact withoutneed to ma+e inference from another fact

E(a#ple4 6he tesmony of the prosecuon

$itness claiming that he sa$ that it $as actually the

deceased $ho aaced the accused $ithout the

laerNs pro"ocaon is a direct e"idence.

Circmstan/a!- ndirectly proves a fact in issuethrough an inference which the fact Hnder draws

from the evidence established

E&am(!e: 6he tesmony of the "icm that

he dreads the mere presence of the accused is



direct e"idence that t+e $tate#ent <a$ #ade*

=t is lie$ise circumstanal

e"idence to sho$ that this fear pre"ented the "icm

from aacing the accused $ithout pro"ocaon.

IN CRIIN!L C!SES, circumstanal

e"idence is su5cient for con"icon $henD

a*6here is more than one circumstance

b*6he facts from $hich the inferences are

deri"ed are pro"en

c* 6he combinaon of all the circumstances

is such as to produce a con"icon beyond

reasonable doubt (ec. < Rule 1;;!

Cu#ulave v* Corroborave

Cm!a/ve( e"idence of the same ind that tends

to pro"e the same fact

E(* 6$o or more $itnesses tesfy that they

sa$ the e"ent $hich the rst $itness claimed he

sa$, the subse3uent tesmonies are cumula"e

Corroora/ve( e"idence $hich tends to conrm,

"alidate or strengthen e"idence already presented.

"idence may be of the same ind or di:erent ind

and tends to pro"e the same fact.

E(* * $itness claims that he sa$ +r. O sign

the document subject of the acon. +r. O denies

the authencity of his signature. "idence by a

hand$ring e#pert is corrobora"e.

%o$ive v* Ne&ave Evidence

Posi/ve- * $itness a5rms in the stand that a

certain state of facts do e#ist or that a certain e"ent

happened

Ne$a/ve- * $itness states that an e"ent did not

occur or that the facts alleged to e#ist did not

actually e#ist. (enial!

Derivave Evidence' type of e"idence that is

inadmissible as proof because of the applicaon of

the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, $hich

treats the original e"idence and any e"idence

deri"ed from it as tainted because of the illegal $ay

in $hich it $as obtained by agents of the

go"ernment.

Rebu=al Evidence' o:ered to contradict other

e"idence or to rebut a resumpon of fact.

Admissii!it" v. #ei$'t

- "idence is !DISSI"LE $hen it is rele"ant

and is not e#cluded by any rule.- &roba"e "alue or 8EI>?) is to be

determined by the court $hen it decides

the case

UL)I%LE !DISSI"ILI);

Evidence is admissible for two or more purposes.The rule is when a fact sa&sHes all rules applicableto it when o6ered for that purpose, its failure tosa&sfy some other rule which would be applicableto it if o6ered for another purpose would not e)clude it.""0$TR#T/NJ *n e#trajudicial confession may be

inadmissible as against a party $ho did not

subscribe to it, yet such party may use said

document as e"idence of lac of guilt.

CONDI)ION!L !DISSI"ILI);

0R: The &me for determining the admissibility of a par&cular fact is ordinarily the &me when it iso6ered to the court.E&ce(/on: %hen some facts depend on some other

facts needed to be established Hrst in order thatsaid former eviden&ary facts would be admissible.""0$TR#T/NJ +r. & les an acon for reco"ery of

o$nership of a parcel of land against +r. . 6he

complaint alleges that +r. & is the o$ner of the

property. uring the trial, +r. & teses and

adduces e"idence that a certain 4 bought the

property from . 6he tesmony of 4 may be

allo$ed if it $ould be sho$n the chain of e"ents

that led to the o$nership of & of the land.

CUR!)IVE !DISSI"ILI);

6here is curave ad#i$$ibility $hen a party o:ers

an inadmissible fact $hich is recei"ed because there

is no objecon by the other party. 6he other party

does not ac3uire the right to introduce in reply to

the same ind of e"idence, E:CE%) $hene"er it is

needed for remo"ing an unfair prejudice $hich

might other$ise ha"e ensued from the origina

e"idence.

""0$TR#T/NJ =n an acon for damages arising

from a car accident, the plain: introduced

e"idence to sho$ that on se"eral occasions the

defendant in the past had injured pedestrians

because of his negligence. (6his is inadmissible

under ec. ;< Rule 1;P- &rior acts as e"idence!

0nder the concept of Cura&ve admissibility thecourt must give the party against whom theevidence was admi*ed the chance to contradict ore)plain the alleged past acts he commi*ed tocounteract the prejudice which the improperlyadmi*ed evidence may have caused.II* 8+at Need Not be %roved

a* Eacts $hich a court shall or may tae

judicial noce. (ecs. 1 and 2, Rule 12Q, R40!

b* /udicial admissions. (ec. <, Rule 12Q

R40!

c* 0onclusi"e presumponsd* isputable presumpons not disputed

Di$n&ui$+ #andatory @udicial noce fro#

di$creonary @udicial noce*

a* Eor mandatory judicial noce the court is

compelled to tae judicial noce because of the use

of the $ord shall in ec. 1, Rule 12Q, R40 H=M

for discreonary judicial noce the court is not

compelled because of the use of the $ord may in

Sec* 03 Rule ,0-3 ROC.

b* +andatory judicial noce taes place at the

courtSs o$n inia"e H=M discreonary judicial



noce may tae place at the courtSs inia"e, or on

re3uest of a party.

c* iscreonary judicial noce re3uires a hearing

and presentaon of e"idence H=M mandatory

judicial noce does not re3uire hearing and

presentaon of e"idence.

A. dicia! No/ce R!e 124 Secs 1-35 R!e 164

Sec. 7

1. #'en Mandator" C&E-M*&-4M-+)T

- #istence and territorial e#tent of states

- 6heir polical history

- Eorms of go"ernment

- ymbols of naonality

- Ma$ of naons

- *dmiralty and marime courts of the $orld and

their seals

- &olical constuon and history of the

&hilippines

- 45cial acts of the legisla"e, e#ecu"e, and

judicial departments of the &hilippines

- Ma$s of nature

- +easure of me

- )eographical di"isions

2. #'en iscre/onar"

- +aers of public no$ledge

- +aers capable of un3uesonable

demonstraon

- +aers $hich ought to be no$n to judges

because of their judicial funcons.

;. #'en 8earin$ is Necessar"

- uring the trialD the court, on its o$n inia"e, or

on re3uest of a party, may announce its intenon to

tae judicial noce of *? +*66R and allo$ the

pares to be heard thereon.

- *9er the trial, and before judgment or on appealD

the proper court, on its o$n inia"e or on re3uest

of a party, may tae judicial noce of any maer

and allo$ the pares to be heard thereon if such

+*66R = 0==> 4E * +*6R=*M =7 in the

case.

UNICI%!L ORDIN!NCES

Courts are not mandated to ta+e judicial no&ce of municipal ordinances unless the charter of the concerned city provides for such judicial no&ce.

4City of Manila vs. 7arcia, 2;AK5. :ut NER/RC/0RT$ siLng in the respec&ve municipali&es or ci&es are

M#N1#TE1 to ta+e judicial no&ce. Thereason is that viola&ons of the ordinances areusually vested to the inferior court EC"0$!E"I inthe e)ercise of their original jurisdic&on.

inferior court too+ judicial no&ce and there was an appeal, such court ta+ing the appeal should li+ewise ta+e judicial no&ce. 40.$. v. :lanco,8K -hil. 29A5COUR) RECORDS4

Courts may ta+e judicial no&ce of its ownrecords of cases (endin$ efore it . 4E).-leadingsF period of perfec&ng appeals.!

Records of preliminary inves&ga&on shall not form part of the record, however the court onits own ini&a&ve or that of any party may orderthe produc&on of the record or any part thereofwhenever the same shall be necessary in theresolu&on of the case or any incident therein orshall be introduced as evidence by the partyreDues&ng for its produc&on.

Courts are not authoried to ta+e judicial no&ceof the contents of the record of other cases

pending or heard before them notwithstandingthey are pending before the same judge.

E&ce(/ons: 1. n the absence of objec&on from the adverse

party, with the +nowledge of the adverse partyF orat the reDuest or with the consent of the par&es, thecase is clearly referred to or the original or part ofthe records of the case are actually withdrawn fromthe archives and admi*ed as part of the record ofthe case then pending. 4Tabuena vs. C#, 2;;252. The other case is so closely connected orinterdependent 3. %hen interests of the public in ascertaining thetruth is of paramount importance9. n cases see+ing to determine what is reasonablee)ercise of discre&on. The Hnality of judgment in a caseFOREI>N L!8S

In &eneral3 courts may not tae judicial noce o

foreign la$s, O0&6 in a fe$ instances $here, in

the e#ercise of sound discreon, they may tae

judicial noce of such foreign la$s of $hich they are

e"idently familiar. (elgado ". Republic, M-2F<I

/anuary 28, 1QFPJ &ardo ". Republic, 8F &hil. ;2;!

8+en forei&n la<$ #ay be t+e $ub@ect of @udicia

noce.

a* hen the local court is e"idently familiar $ith the

foreign la$.

b* hen the foreign la$ refers to the la$ of naons

(ec. 1, Rule 12Q, R40!

c* hen the court taes judicial noce of a

published trease, periodical or pamphlet on asubject of la$ as a learned trearse. (ec. <I, Rule

1;P, bid.!d* hen the foreign statute is acepted by the

&hilippine go"ernemnt. (Republic ". )uan@on, I1

0R* ;IP!

e* hen a foreign judgmen containing foreign la$ is

recogni@ed for enforcement. (ec. <8, Rule ;Q, R40!

f* =f the foreign la$ refers to common la$ doctrines

and rules from $hich many of our la$s $ere

deri"ed. (*l@ua ". /ohnson, 21 &hil. ;P8!

octrine of Processa! Presm(/on: oreign law is



the same as the law of the forum. t arises if the foreign law, though properly applicable is either not alleged or if alleged is not duly proved before acompetent court.B. dicia! Admissions R!e 124 Sec. 9

-enionD admissions, "erbal or $rien, made by

the party in the course of the proceedings in the

same case

-&roof is not re3uired.

-Ho$ contradictedD 4M? by sho$ing

6hat it $as made through palpable mistae

or

6hat no such admission $as made

'aving been amended, the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission,which would have reDuired no proof and becamemerely any e)trajudicial admission reDuiring a

formal o6er in order to be admissible. 4Torres vs. C#,2;@=5FORS OF !DISSIONS4

1. =mplied admissions of allegaons of usury and

in aconable documents if not specically

denied under oath (ec. 11 U 8, Rule 8!

2. *dmissions in pre-trial of ci"il cases and

criminal cases (=n criminal cases the admission

must be reduced in $ring and signed by

accused and counsel- ec. < Rule 118!

3. =mplied admissions in the modes of disco"ery

(eposionsJ =nterrogatories- Rule 2;J Eailure to

specically deny under oath $in 1F days a

Re3uest for *dmission in a pending case( Rule9AF 5

4. *dmissions in amended pleadings (ec. 8 Rule1P! CN.:. #dmissions in superseded pleadingsare e)tra(judicial admissions which must be

proven. 1ismissed pleadings are li+ewisee)trajudicial admissionsO

<. -lea of guilt in criminal case 4N.:. # withdrawn plea of guilt is inadmissible, unli+e in civil caseswhere a withdrawn judicial admission isconsidered an e)trajudicial admission5

I. *dmissions by counsel are generally conclusi"e

upon a client absent any gross negligence $hich

depri"es counsel of due process of la$ or there

is outright depri"aon of property or liberty.Note4 *dmissions in pleadings may not al$ays be

considered as judicial admissions because there are

+ypot+ecal ad#i$$ion$ in ci"il cases. (i.e.

*5rma"e defenses in an ans$erJ +oon to

dismiss, $here defendant admits allegaons but

sets up grounds such as lac of jurisdicon etc.!

Note$4 ,* =t is not essenal that an admission is

contrary to the interest of party at the me it is

made. =t is enough that it be =04=66 $ith

the posion a party taes in his pleadings or at trial.

0* *"erments in pleadings not deemed

admissions e"en if there is failure to mae a specic

denialD a! =mmaterial allegaonsJ b! 0onclusions and

non-unlmate factsJ c! *mount of unli3uidated

damages.

!dopve !d#i$$ion$

* partyNs reacon to a statement or acon by

another person $hen it is reasonable to treat the

partyNs reacon as an admission of something

stated or implied by the other person.

!dopted Confe$$ion$

* co-accused impliedly ac3uiesced in or adopted

the otherNs confession by not 3uesoning its

truthfulness, as $here it $as made in his presence

and he did not demonstrate against his being

implicated therein

III* Rule$ of !d#i$$ibility

A. Ob@ect 7Real9 Evidence BRule 1;P, ec. 1.

- "idence addressed to the senses of the court.

- hen an object is rele"ant to the fact in issue, it

may be e#hibited to, e#amined or "ie$ed by the

court.

!U)O%)IC %ROFERENCE 7VIE8 OF !N O"AEC)9

- here the object in 3ueson cannot be produced

in court because it is immo"able or incon"enient to

remo"e, the natural recourse is for the court to

order an ocular inspecon and go to the object in its

place and obser"e it there.

I$ t+ere an e(clu$ionary rule <+en it co#e$ to

ob@ect evidenceB

6here is none. Ho$e"er, the court is gi"en enough

discreon to determine $hich object e"idence

should be presented, upon determinaon $hether

or not it $ill result to scandal or it does not $or

any addional benet to the plain: or that it $il

gi"e undue prejudice to the defendant.

=MM76R*6=4D

;oot(rints

* bloody foot print $as found upon a Koor near the

dead body of a person. 7pon being arrested, the

accused $as taen to the house $here the incident

happen. 7pon placing his foot o"er the foot print it

$as found that his foot corresponded e#actly to said

footprint. 'E"1J &roof of this circumstance is

admissible, not$ithstanding that no photograph of

the footprint $as submied in e"idence and thatthe board itself upon $hich the footprint $as made

$as not produced in court. (0$ v. Para, =8 -hil. 83@5Resem!ance4 Race4 A$e or Parenta$e

6o determine $hether a person is alien or not

his personal appearance, ethnological and racia

characterisc, language, customs, dress and

manners may be taen into consideraon.

=n determining the age of the accused $ho had

no posi"e informaon on the subject, the

court too into account his appearance and

judged that he $as a youth of 18 or 1Q years of



age.

* physical comparison may be made bet$een a

minor 0hinese applying for admission into the

country $ith his alleged father.

P'oto$ra('s

here deposion of subscribing $itnesses to a

$ill are taen, a photographic copy of the $ill

may be presented to the $itnesses on their

e#aminaon and they may be ased the same

3ueson $ith respect to said copy as if it $ere

the original $ill and tesmony as to the identy

of the photographic copy sho$n to the

$itnesses is admissible in e"idence.

&hotographs may be admissible upon proof of

their e#actness and accuracy by the

photographer himself $ho can tesfy of his

personal no$ledge of the correctness of the

representaon. (6an =t ". un =nsurance 45ce,

F1 &hil. 212!

NO)ES4

6he photographer is not the only $itness

$ho can idenfy the pictures. 6he faithful

representaon of the photograph may be pro"ed

prima facie by the tesmony of those $ho $ere

present at the me it $as taen, or by any other

competent $itness $ho can tesfy as to its

e#actness and accuracy. 4nce pro"ed, the court

may admit it subject to impeachment as to its

accuracy.

6he "alue of a photograph lies in its being a

correct representaon or reproducon of the

original, and its admissibility is determined by its

accuracy in portraying the scene at the me the

picture $as taen. (ison ". &eople, 2FP 0R* F8,

AF-AI!

&hotocopies or #ero# copies of signed

documents are not duplicate originals because they

are not signed. (+ahilum ". 0ourt of *ppeals, 1A

0R* <82!

Co#puter printout$*

=f the data are stored in a computer or

similar de"ice, any printout or other output

readable by sight, sho$n to reKect the data

accurately, is an original. ("idence 0ode of

0alifornia, *dded by tats. 1QAA, ec. 1! =n a labor case, ='+ &hilippines, =nc., et al.,

". MR0, et al., ).R. o. 11A221, prom. *pril 1;,

1QQQ, the upreme 0ourt held that computer

printouts $hich $ere not signed because they are

unsigned. 6he 0ourt $ent on further to say that its

decisions, $hile adhering to a liberal "ie$ in the

conduct of proceedings before administra"e

agencies, ha"e nonetheless consistently re3uired

some proof of authencity or reliability as condion

for the admission of documents.

ot one of the 18 print-out copies

submied by ='+ $as e"er signed, either by the

sender or the recei"er. 6here is thus no guarantee

that the message sent $as the same message

recei"ed. either $ere the print-outs cered o

authencated by any company o5cial $ho could

properly aest that these came from ='+Ns

computer system or that the data stored in the

system $ere not andor could not ha"ed been

tampered $ith before the same $ere printed out.

<a!!ots

- "ery ballot needs to be presented in a case of

elecon protest. "ery ballot constutes the $ill of

e"ery "oter.

DEONS)R!)IVE EVIDENCE

- one $hich or represents demonstrates the rea

thing. (e#. +ap, diagram, photograph, or a model!

P'oto$ra('sJ Must faithfully represent what itdepicts 4$ame rules apply to mo&on pictures andrecordings5

=-Ra"s: Must show loca&on and e)tent of injury Scien/>c tests4 demonstra/ons " ('"sica! act and

e&(eriments: This is a ma*er of judicial discre&on.B. Docu#entary Evidence B Rule 1;P, ec

2.

- rings or any material containing leers, $ords

numbers, gures, symbols or other modes o

$rien e#pression o:ered as proof of thei

content$.

1. <est Evidence R!e B Rule 1;P, ecs. ;-<

>eneral Rule4 hen the subject of in3uiry is the

contents of a document, no e"idence shall be

admissible other than the original document itself.

E(cepon$4

1. hen the original has been lost or destroyed

or cannot be produced in court, $ithout bad

faith on the part of the o:erorJ

2. hen the original is in the custody or under the

control of the party against $hom the e"idence

is o:ered, and the laer fails to produce it a9er

reasonable noceJ

3. hen the original consists of numerous

accounts or other documents $hich cannot be

e#amined in court $ithout great loss of me

and the fact sought to be established fromthem is only the general result of the $hole

and

4. hen the original is a public record in the

custody of a public o5cer or is recorded in a

public o5ce.

Ori&inal of a Docu#ent

1 6he original of the document is one the

contents of $hich are the subject of in3uiry.

2 hen a document is in t$o or more copies

e#ecuted at or about the same me, $ith

idencal contents, all such copies are e3ually



regarded as originals.

3 hen an entry is repeated in the regular course

of business, one being copied from another at

or near the me of the transacon, all the

entries are lie$ise e3ually regarded as

originals.

Rule$ on Electronic Evidence 7Rule 69 –

Sec* ,* Ori&inal of an Electronic Docu#ent – *n

electronic document shall be regarded as the

e3ui"alent of an original document under the 'est

"idence Rule if it is a printout or output readable

by sight or other means, sho$n to reKect the data

accurately.

Sec* 0* Copie$ a$ euivalent of t+e ori&inal$ –

hen a document is in t$o or more copies

e#ecuted at or about the same me $ith idencal

contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same

impression as the original, or from the same matri#,

or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by

chemical reproducon, or by other e3ui"alent

techni3ues $hich accurately reproduces the

original. ot$ithstanding the foregoing, copies or

duplicates shall not be admissible to the same

e#tent as the original ifD a genuine 3ueson is

raised as to the authencity of the originalJ or in the

circumstances it $ould be unjust or ine3uitable to

admit the copy in lieu of the original.

Carbon copies are deemed duplicateoriginals. They may be introduced as evidencewithout accoun&ng for the non(produc&on of theoriginal. 4-eople vs. Tan, 2;<;5

The :est Evidence Rule applies only whenthe contents of the document are the subject of inDuiry. t does not apply when the issue is only asto whether or not such document was actually e)ecuted or in the circumstances relevant to itse)ecu&on. 4-eople vs. Tandoy, 2;;35SOE E:!%LES4

,* 'apsmal and +arriage 0ercate

- 6hey are only e"idence to pro"e the

administraon of the sacraments on the

dates therein specied

- 'apsmal cercate is not conclusi"e proof

of liaon being hearsay

0* +edical 0ercate- 6o pro"e torture inKicted by the police, the

medical cercate alone $ithout the

tesmony of the e#amining physician is

inadmissible (&eople ". >illagracia, 22I

0R* ;Q8!

2* Residence 0ercate

- 6he place of obtaining a residence

cercate and the date contained are not

conclusi"e as to the real residence or

domicile of a person o$ning said

cercate. (Vuellig ". Republic, 8; &hil. AI8!

6* 6a# declaraon

- =t can be used as e"idence that a poron of

land had been sold. ()acos ". 0*, 212 0R*

8!

* *ccounts and *ccount 'oos

- here the custom broerNs authori@ed

representa"e accepted the cargo W4X and

completeY as sho$n in the sur"eyorNs

report countersigned by him and it $as

ob"iously his assigned tas to note defects

in the cargo, said acceptanceZif not being

outright upon the customNs broerZis at

least e"idence of the condion of the goods

$hen thus recei"ed. (=nsurance 0ompany of

orth *merica "s. 0.E. harp U 0o., =nc. 18

0R* <I2!

- *n audit made by or the tesmony of a

pri"ate auditor is inadmissible in e"idence

as proof of the original records, boos of

accounts, reports or the lie. (0ompania

+arima "s. *llied Eree orers 7nion, AA

0R* 2<!

!er co#plyin& <it+ t+e "ES) EVIDENCE RULE <il

t+e court nece$$arily ad#it t+e ori&inal <rin&B

o.

,9 6he re3uirements of authencaon o

documents must be met. 6here must be proof of

authencaon. Ho$e"er this applies only $hen the

$ring is a pri"ate document.

09 *9er authencaon, the proponent has to

comply $ith the rule that if the original $ring is

not in an o5cial language (nglish or Eilipino!, it is

his duty to gi"e to the court a translaon thereof.2! =f there is an alteraon, he must e#plain such

alteraon. He may sho$ that the alteraon $as

madeD

by another,

$ithout his concurrence, or

made $ith the consent of the pares

a:ected by it, or

$as other$ise properly or innocent made

or

6he alteraon did not change the meaning

or language of the instrument.

%RIV!)E DOCUEN)S* ?o< %roven [ Rule 1;2, ec2P

'efore any pri"ate document o:ered as

authenc is recei"ed in e"idence, its due e#ecuon

and authencity must be pro"ed eitherD (1! by

anyone $ho say the document e#ecuted or $rien

or (2! by e"idence of the genuineness of the

signature or hand$ring of the maer. *ny othe

pri"ate document need only be idened as that

$hich it is claimed to be.

!ncient Docu#ent Rule Rule 1;2, ec. 21 (ot

Re3uired to *uthencate!



Re3uisitesD

7,9 6he pri"ate document is more than ;P years oldJ

709 =t is produced from a custody in $hich it $ould

naturally be found if genuineJ

729 =t is unblemished by any alteraons or

circumstances of suspicion.

=f all re3uisites ha"e been met, no other e"idence of

its authencity is re3uired.

?o< >enuinene$$ of ?and<rin& i$ %roven [ Rule

1;2, ec. 22

=t may be pro"ed by any $itness $ho

belie"es it to be the hand$ring of such person

because he has seen the person $rite, or has seen

$ring purporng to be his upon $hich the $itness

has acted or been charged, and has thus ac3uired

no$ledge of the hand$ring of such person.

"idence respecng the hand$ring may

also be gi"en by a comparison made by the $itness

or the court, $ith $rings admied or treated as

genuine by the party against $hom the e"idence is

o:ered, or pro"ed to be genuine to the sasfacon

of the judge.

Not #uc+ <ei&+t i$ &iven to +and<rin& e(pert$.

7nless, therefore, there is, in a gi"en case, absolute

absence, or manifest dearth, or direct or

circumstanal competent e"idence of the character

of a 3uesoned hand$ring, much $eight should

not be gi"en to characterisc similaries, or

dissimilaries, bet$een the 3uesoned hand$ring

and an authenc one. (&un@alan ". 0ommission on

lecons, ).R. o. 1;2<;F prom. *pril 2A, 1QQ8

cing Moren@o ". ia@, F; 4.). <11P-<111, cited in

Erancisco on "idence, >ol. >==, &art =, 1QQA dion,

p. IA<!

%uesons in"ol"ing the mere similarity or

dissimilarity of hand$rings could be determined

by the court itself as authori@ed under ec. 22, Rule

1;2 of the Rules of 0ourt by maing a comparison

of the disputed hand$ring $ith $rings admied

or treated as genuine by the party against $hom

the e"idence is o:ered, or pro"ed to be genuine to

the sasfacon of the judge. (&un@alan ".

0ommission on lecons, supra!

2. Secondar" Evidence B Rule 1;P, ecs. F-8

=nstances $hen secondary e"idence may beintroducedD

$hen original document is una"ailable

(lost, destroyed or cannot be produced in

court! B

6he o:eror, upon proof of (1! its

e#ecuon or e#istence and (2! cause of its

una"ailability, $ithout bad faith on his

part may pro"e its contents byD

* copy

* recital of its contents in some

authenc document

6he tesmony of $itnesses.

6he order stated must be follo$ed.

hen original document is in ad"erse

partyNs custody or control.

=f a9er reasonable noce is gi"en to the

ad"erse party to produce the document

and a9er sasfactory proof of the

e#istence of the document is made, he

fails to produce the document, secondary

e"idence may be presented.

$hen original document is a public record.

=ts contents may be pro"ed by a cered

copy issued by the public o5cer in

custody thereof.

* party $ho calls for the producon of a

document and inspects it is not obliged to o:er it

as e"idence.

The voluminous character of the documentmust be established before evidence other than theoriginal may be introduced. 4Compania Mari&ma

vs. #llied ree %or+ers, 2;KK5n the case where the original is in thecustody of the adverse party, it is not necessary thatit be in the actual possession of the adverse party.t is enough that the circumstances show that thewri&ng is in his possession or under his control.$econdary evidence is admissible where the adverse

party denies having it in his possession. 4!illa ReyTransit vs. errer, 2;A@5

#ll duplicates or counterparts must beaccounted for before using copies as evidence. 41e!era vs. #guilar, 2;@85

3. Paro! Evidence R!e B Rule 1;P, ec. QNature of parol evidence rule4

=t is not a rule of e"idence but of substan"e la$.

=t is part of the la$ of contracts, the la$ o

negoable instruments, and the la$ of $ills. =t is

founded upon the substan"e rights of the

pares. =t $as made part of the rules of e"idence

in order

that it may be considered in all its phases in one

place.

Rea$on$ for t+e parol evidence rule4

hen the pares ha"e reduced their

agreement in $ring, it is presumed that they ha"e made the

$ring

the only repository and memorial of the

truth, and

$hate"er is not found in the $ring must

be understood to ha"e been $ai"ed or

abandoned.

>eneral Rule4 hen the terms of an *)R+6

(including =MM! ha"e been reduced to R=6=), it

is considered as containing *MM the terms agreed

upon and there can be, bet$een the pares and



their successors in interest, 4 e"idence

(tesmonial or documentary! of such terms other

than the contents of the $rien agreement.

E(cepon$J * party may present e"idence to B

+odify,

#plain or

*dd to

the terms of $rien agreement if he

puts in issue in his pleadingD

*n intrinsic ambiguity, mistae or

imperfecon in the $rien

agreementJ

6he failure of the $rien

agreement to e#press the true

intent and agreement of the

pares theretoJ

6he "alidity of the $rien

agreementJ or

6he e#istence of other terms

agreed to by the pares or their

successors in interest a9er the

e#ecuon of the $rien

agreement.

ILLUS)R!)ION4 6he "endee can "alidly tell the court

that the deed of sale is not really one of sale but

one or mortgage as long as he puts in issue in the

pleadings, any of the maers enumerated abo"e.

C.'. *rt. 1IP2, 00 presumes that a deed of sale is

an e3uitable mortgage $henD 1T price of sale $ith

right to purchase is unusually inade3uateJ 2! >endor

remains in possession as lessee or other$iseJ ;!

hen another instrument e#tending period of

redempon is e#ecutedJ <! hen purchaser retainsfor himself a part of purchase priceJ F! >endor

assumes ta#J I! 4ther circumstancesT

ILLUS)R!)ION4 6here is a sale of a piece of land in

fa"or of /uan dela 0ru@. =f you read the document

there is really nothing $rong because there is a

"endor, there is a "endee and there is an object and

consideraon. 'ut it turns out that there are t$o

persons $ho carry the name /uan de la 0ru@. That document is intrinsica!!" ambiguous because we donot +now who the vendee in that sale. 6he defect

can be remedied by the introducon of tesmonial

e"idence or other documentary e"idence to sho$ tothe court $ho is the /uan dela 0ru@ menoned in

the deed of sale as the "endee.

'ut if in that deed of sale $here /uan dela 0ru@ is

the "endee, and there is only one /uan dela 0ru@,

but the property sold is simply a piece of land.

6here is an ambiguity $hat parcular land is sold as

there is no descripon. 6he ambiguity is e(trin$ic. =t

arises from the face of the document itself. Here $e

cannot introduce e"idence aliunde. 6he contract is

"oid, $hich under the Rules cannot allo$ be

corrected and con"erted into a "alid contract.

7 cases and some &hilippine cases recogni@ed

inter#ediate a#bi&uity, and e"idence aliunde

may be admied by the court to e#plain or add

to its meaning. 6his arises by the use o

e3ui"ocal $ords $hich is suscepble of more

than one interpretaon.

E)ampleJ 1efendant sold to plain&6 a dis&llingapparatus of guaranteed capacity of A,333 litersdaily. 1efendant claimed that the phrase referred to>receiving? capacity. 'ere the word >capacity? wassuscep&ble of two interpreta&ons. $C held that

parol evidence is admissible to show which of thetwo interpreta&ons meant by the par&es. 4-alancav. red %ilson Q Co., 8K -hil. <3A5#'at is t'e covera$e of t'e (aro! evidence r!e

and ?'at are t'e e&ce(/ons to t'e (aro! evidence

r!e @

Covered* 4nly prior and contemporaneous

agreements $hich are deemed to ha"e been

merged in the $ring conformably to the

integraon of the agreement rule.

(oodhouse ". Halili, Q; &hil. F2I!

Not covered*

ubse3uent agreements, not$ithstanding

that such agreements may ha"e the e:ect

of adding to, changing, modifying, or e"en

altogether abrogang the contract of the

pares as e"idenced by the $ring.

0ollateral agreements $hich although ora

and contemporaneous $ith the $ring are

separate and disnct agreements. (&' "

eeto, Q1 &hil. AFI!

=t also does not apply if the issue re"ol"es

around fraud and false representaon since

they are incidental to the e#ecuon and not

to the integraon. (oodhouse "s. Halili

1QF;!

=t does not apply either $hen third pares

are in"ol"ed. (Mechugas "s. 0*, 1Q8I!

NO)ES4

Conte#poraneou$ a&ree#ent* *

contemporaneous agreement is one entered

into at the same me as the agreement $hich

has been reduced to $ring.

)e$t$ to deter#ine <+et+er aconte#poraneou$ oral a&ree#ent i$ $eparate

and di$nct fro# t+e <ri=en a&ree#ent and

t+erefore provable by parol evidence4

6he rst test is the subject-maer of the

t$o agreements. =f the subject-maer of

the $rien agreement is diGerent from

that of the contemporaneous ora

agreement, then the laer is a separate and

disnct agreement and, therefore, pro"able

by parol e"idence.



=f the t$o agreements refer to the same

subject-maer, the test is to determine

$hether or not the contemporaneous oral

agreement is $eparable, then the

contemporaneous oral agreement is

separate and disnct and, therefore,

probable by parol e"idence. (Mese ".

Mamprecht, 1QI .?. ;2!

E(a#ple of a&ree#ent <+ic+ C!NNO) be

proven by parol evidenceD #press trusts

concerning real property cannot be pro"en by

parol e"idence because tle and possession

cannot be defeated by oral e"idence $hich can

easily be fabricated and contradicted. (inaon,

et al., ". orongon, et al., 1;I 0R* <1P!

E(a#ple$ of collateral a&ree#ent$ <+ic+ C!N

be proved by parol evidence4

*n agreement of recon"eyance is a disnct

agreement, separate from the sale itself,

although the t$o agreements are usually

contained in one and the same document.

(Maureano ". Xilayco, ;< &hil. 1<8J ?acapin ".

eri, <P &hil. I1!

=nducements and representaons $hich led

to the e#ecuon of an agreement may be

pro"en by parol e"idence because they do

not "ary the terms of the agreement.

(oodhouse ". Halili, Q; &hil. F2IJ 'ough ".

0an"eros, <P &hil. 2PQ!

&arol e"idence is admissible to pro"e an

independent and collateral agreement

$hich constutes an inducement to the

maing of the sale or part of the

consideraon thereof. (Robles ". Mi@arraga

Hnos., FP &hil. ;8A!

* condion precedent not spulated in

$ring is pro"able by oral e"idence.

R*4D 'efore the happening of the

condion, there is no $rien agreement

yet to $hich the parol e"idence may apply.

>erbal assurances gi"en by the indorser of

an out-of-to$n chec to the employees of

the ban $here it $as presented for

encashment that he $ould refund the

amount if the chec should be dishonoredby the dra$ee ban is a collateral

agreement separate and disnct from the

indorsement, by "irtue of $hich the rst

ban $as induced to cash the same, and

therefore, pro"able by parol e"idence.

(&' ". eeto, Q1 &hil. AFI!

*ny prior or contemporaneous con"ersaion

in connecon $ith a note or its

indorsement may be pro"ed by parol

e"idence. (&' ". eeto, Q1 &hil. AFIJ

&hilips ". &reston, F Ho$. C7..T 2A8!

*n e#trinsic agreement bet$een indorse

and indorsee $hich cannot be embodied in

the instrument $ithout impairing its credit

may be pro"ed by parol e"idence. (&' "

eeto, Q1 &hil. AFIJ Q igmore 1<8!

6he fact that pares $ho appear to ha"e

signed as principals did so as merely

surees is pro"able by parol e"idence. (6an

+achan ". e la 6rinidad, ; &hil. I8<!

;ALSA EM,NS+RA+I,N N,N N,CE+

- >alse descrip&on will not invalidate aninstrument?

- The erroneous descrip&on will beconsidered as a surplusage.

""0$TR#T/NJ =n a deed of sale of a parcel of land

co"ered byD 606 12;<F, located in 0ity o

+unnlupa. 6here is really a land co"ered by 606

12;<F $ith same technical descripon ho$e"er it is

not located in +unnlupa, but in Maguna. Theerroneous descrip&on will not invalidate thecontract."e$t evidence rule di$n&ui$+ed fro# paro

evidence rule4

,9 7nder the best e"idence rule, the issue is

contents of a $ring (ec. ;, Rule 1;P, R40! H=M

under the parol e"idence rule, there is no issue as to

contents of a $ring (ec. Q, Rule 1;P, R40!J

09 7nder the best e"idence rule, secondary

e"idence is o:ered to pro"e the contents of a

$ring, $hich is not allo$ed unless the case falls

under any of the e#cepons (ec. ;, Rule 1;P, R40!

H=M under the parol e"idence rule, the purpose

of the o:er of parol e"idence is to change, "ary,modify, 3ualify, or contradict the terms of a

complete $rien agreement, $hich is not allo$ed

unless the case falls under any of the e#cepons

(ec. Q, Rule 1;P, R40!

4nly the pares and their successors in interest, and

not strangers may in"oe the protecon of the paro

e"idence rule. (ec. Q, Rule 1;P, R40!

%!ROLE EVIDENCE DIS)IN>UIS?ED FRO S)!)U)E

OF FR!UDS

6he tatute of Erauds re3uires that certain

agreements be pro"ed by $ring or by some note

or memorandum thereof in order to be enforceable4n the other hand, the &arole "idence Rule has

nothing to do $ith the manner of pro"ing

agreements. =ts object is to prohibit alteraon

change, modicaon, "ariaon or contradicon of

the terms of a $rien agreement by Wparo

e"idenceY.

6* Interpretaon of Docu#ent$ – Rule ,253 Sec$

,5',-

SEC* ,5* nterpreta&on of a wri&ng according to its



legal meaning. Z6he language of a $ring is to be

interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears

in the place of its e#ecuon, unless the pares

intended other$ise.

SEC* ,,* nstrument construed so as to give e6ect toall provisions. Z=n the construcon of an

instrument $here there are se"eral pro"isions or

parculars, such a construcon is, if possible, to be

adopted as $ill gi"e e:ect to all.

SEC* ,0* nterpreta&on according to inten&onFgeneral and par&cular provisions. Z=n the

construcon of an instrument, the intenon of the

pares is to be pursuedJ and $hen a general and a

parcular pro"ision are inconsistent, the laer is

paramount to the former. o a parcular intent $ill

control a general one that is inconsistent $ith it.

SEC* ,2* nterpreta&on according to circumstances.ZEor the proper construcon of an instrument, the

circumstances under $hich it $as made, including

the situaon of the subject thereof and of the

pares to it, may be sho$n, so that the judge may

be placed in the posion of those $hose language

he is to interpret.

SEC* ,6* -eculiar signiHca&on of terms. Z6he terms

of a $ring are presumed to ha"e been used in

their primary and general acceptaon, but e"idence

is admissible to sho$ that they ha"e a local,

technical, or other$ise peculiar signicaon, and

$ere so used and understood, in the parcular

instance, in $hich case the agreement must be

construed accordingly.

SEC* ,* %ri*en words control printed. Zhen an

instrument consists partly of $rien $ords and

partly of a printed form, and the t$o are

inconsistent, the former controls the laer.

SEC* ,H* E)perts and interpreters to be used ine)plaining certain wri&ngs. Zhen the characters

in $hich an instrument is $rien are di5cult to be

deciphered, or the language is not understood by

the court, the e"idence of persons silled in

deciphering the characters, or $ho understand the

language, is admissible to declare the characters or

the meaning of the language.

SEC* ,/* /f two construc&ons, which preferred. Z

hen the terms of an agreement ha"e beenintended in a di:erent sense by the di:erent pares

to it, that sense is to pre"ail against either party in

$hich he supposed the other understood it, and

$hen di:erent construcons of a pro"ision are

other$ise e3ually proper, that is to be taen $hich

is the most fa"orable to the party in $hose fa"or the

pro"ision is made.

SEC* ,.* Construc&on in favor of natural right. Z

hen an instrument is e3ually suscepble of t$o

interpretaons, one in fa"or of natural right and the

other against it, the former is to be adopted.

SEC* ,-* nterpreta&on according to usage. Z*n

instrument may be construed according to usage, in

order to determine its true character.

C. )e$#onial Evidence

ualiJcaon$ of 8itne$$e$ – Rule ,253 Sec* 05

- 0an percei"e, and percei"ing, can mae thei

no$n percepon to others.

>R4 * disinterested person could be compelled to

gi"e his tesmony through subpoena

E(cepon$4 -ersons who are immune from the process of subpoena by tradi&on, conven&on or lawJ

*mbassadors of foreign countries by "irtue

of treaty obligaons

&resident of the &hilippines or othe

country

isa!i>ca/ons –

+ental incapacity or immaturity (ec. 21, Rule

1;P, R40!J

+arriage (ec. 22, =bid!J

eath or insanity of ad"erse party (ec. 2;, =bid.!

&ri"ileged communicaon (ec. 2<, =bid.!

C*pplies to Rules on lectronic "idenceT

+arital pri"ileged communicaon rule (ec.

2< CaT, =bid.!J

Ma$yer-client pri"ileged communicaon

rule (ec. 2< CbT, =bid.!J

octor-paent pri"ileged communicaon

rule (ec. 2< CcT, =bid.!- (* in criminal

cases!

&riest-penitent pri"ileged communicaon

rule (ec. 2< CdT, =bid.!J and

&ublic o5cer pri"ileged communicaon

rule (ec. 2< CeT, =bid.!.

&arental and lial tesmonial pri"ilege rule (ec.

2F, Rule 1;P, R40!

Note4 0on"icon of a crime does not

dis3ualify a person from tesfying but may

dis3ualify him from being discharged as a state

$itness. (ec. Q CeT, Rule 11Q, R40!

Note4 6his is not an e#clusi"e enumeraon of

the Rules on pri"ilege communicaon. 4ther

e#amples areD

7nder Rules on *lterna"e dispute

Resoluon, informaon or communicaon

gi"en by pares $ho parcipate in *R iscondenal

=nformaon deri"ed by editors, reporters

and publishers

6he negoaons under the itness

&rotecon &rogram (*ccused discharged

as state $itness!

!* "y rea$on of #ental incapacity or i##aturity

B Rule ;P, ec. 21

6hose $hose mental condion, at the me of



their producon for e#aminaon, is such that they

are incapable of intelligently maing no$n their

percepon to othersJ

0hildren $hose mental maturity is such as to

render them incapable of percei"ing the facts

respecng $hich they are e#amined and of

relang them truthfully.

# mental retardate is not for this reasonalone disDualiHed from being a witness. 4-eople vs.$alomon, 2;;85

ReDuisites of competency of a child aswitnessJ capacity of observa&onF capacity of recollec&onF and capacity of communica&on.4-eople vs. Mendoa, 2;;A5"* arital Di$ualiJcaon – Rule 1;P, ec. 22

0enera! R!e: uring their marriage, neither the

husband nor the $ife may tesfy for or against the

other $ithout the consent of the a:ected spouse.

E&ce(/ons:

- =n a ci"il case by one against the other or,

- =n a criminal case for a crime commied by one

against the other or the laerSs direct descendants

or ascendants.

The right to invo+e this disDualiHca&on belongs tothe spouse(party (4r@ ". *rambulo, 8 &hil. Q8!

against or for $hom the tesmony is being

proferred. =t may be $ai"edD

,9 'y a failure to interpose mely objecon, or

09 'y calling the other spouse as $itness (=bid.,

&eople ". Erancisco, A8 &hil. IQ<!

The privilege could be invo+ed even if thespouse is tes&fying in favor of the spouse(partybecause damaging tes&mony may be elicited duringthe cross(e)amina&on.DIFFERENCE "K8 %RIVILE>E !ND !RI)!L

DISU!LIFIC!)ION

,9 &ri"ilege is applicable regardless of $hether

the spouses are pares or not $hile +arital

dis3ualicaon is applicable only $hen one or

both spouses are pares

09 6he pri"ilege applies to tesmonies on

condenal communicaon only $hile +arital

dis3ualicaon applies to tesmony on any fact

29 +arital dis3ualicaon ceases a9er

dissoluon of marriage $hile &ri"ilegedcommunicaon lasts e"en a9er the death of

either spouse

69 "en if the communicaon is not

condenal, the marital dis3ualicaon may sll

be in"oed

9 +arital dis3ualicaon is more concerned

$ith the conse3uences. =f the rule is not there,

perjury and domesc disunity may result. 4n the

other hand, &ri"ilege protects the hallo$ed

condences inherent in marriage b$ husband

and $ife and therefore guarantees the

preser"aon of the marriage and further the

relaonship bet$een the spouses as it

encourages the disclosure of condenal maers

$ithout fear of re"elaon.

arryin& t+e 8itne$$M

*n accused can e:ec"ely Wseal the lipsY of

a $itness by marrying the $itness. *s long as a "alid

marriage is in e#istence at the me of the trial, the

$itness-spouse cannot be compelled to tesfyZ

e"en $here the crime charged is against the

$itnessN person, and e"en though the marriage $as

entered into for the e#press purpose of suppressing

the tesmony. (+arriage for con"enience!

C!SE4 * led a complaint against husband and $ife

for annulment of a contract by reason of fraud

(HU both defendants!. * subpoenaed the $ife to

be his hosle $itness $hich is allo$ed in ci"il cases

hen the $ife recei"ed the subpoena, the husband

led a moon in court for the 3uashing of the

subpoeana, on the ground that there is a "iolaon

of the rule on marital dis3ualicaonspousa

immunity. * told the court that this is not a case

$here the $ife $ill be gi"ing tesmony as an

ad"erse $itness in fa"or of the plain:. o the rule

on spousal immunity does not apply. Rulin& of t+e

Court4 pousal immunity applies. =f the $ife $as

allo$ed to tesfy as an ad"erse $itness for the

plain:, she might gi"e tesmony that he $ill harm

her interest and that of her husband. o that there

$ill be a "iolaon of the spousal immunity.

* conceded. * told the court no$ that if he

cannot compel the $ife to be an ad"erse $itness,

then he should be allo$ed to get the deposion of

the $ife, because under the Rules of 0ourt $hen

the deposion of a person is taen, it does no

necessarily mean that the deponent $ill be used as

a $itness in court, since it is only a mode o

disco"ery. Rulin& of t+e Court4 "en if the purpose is

just to get the deposion of the $ife the rule on

spousal immunity applies.

C!SE4 * son led a complaint against his o$n father

for reco"ery of property or some assets. 6he son

ased her mother to tesfy in his fa"or. 0 held that

there $ill be a "iolaon of the spousal immunity

rule.Note4 *s long as there is a case INVOLVIN> the

husband OR $ife, the dis3ualicaon is absolute.

C* Dead anM$ Statute B Rule 1;P, ec. 2;

- omeme called the Wur"i"orNs

dis3ualicaon ruleY

&ares or assignor of pares to a case, or persons in

$hose behalf a case is prosecuted, against

- *n e#ecutor or

- *dministrator or

- 4ther representa"e of a deceased person, o

against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or



demand against the estate of such deceased person

or against such person of unsound mind, cannot

tesfy as to any maer of fact occurring 'E4R the

death of such deceased person or before such

person became of unsound mind.

E(cepon$ to t+e $urvivorM$ di$ualiJcaon rule4

4rdinary $itnesses, $ho are not the plain:,

assignor of plain:, or person in $hose behalf

the case is prosecuted may tesfy. (Erancia ".

Hipolito, Q; &hil. QI8!

hen the plain: is a corporaon, the o5cers

or stocholders thereof are not dis3ualied.

(Michauco ". *tlanc )ulf, et c., 8< &hil. ;;P!

hen there is an imputaon of fraud against

the deceased, the plain: is not barred from

tesfying to such fraud. ()o 0hi )un ". 0o 0ho,

QI &hil. I22!

hen the plain: is the e#ecutor, administrator

or legal representa"e of the deceased, or the

person of unsound mind, the defendant or

defendants are free to tesfy against the

plain:. (6ongco ". >ian@on, FP &hil. IQ8!

hen the defendant or defendants, though

heirs of the deceased, are sued in their personal

and indi"idual capacies, the plain: may

tesfy against them. ()o 0hi )un ". 0o 0ho, QI

&hil. I22!

hen the sur"i"orSs tesmony refers to a

nega"e fact. (+ende@ona ". "da. de )oia, F<

&hil. FFA!

hen the sur"i"orSs tesmony is fa"orable to

the deceased. (=card ". +arasigan, A1 &hil. <1Q!

6he ad"erse party is competent to tesfy to

transacons or communicaons $ith the

deceased or incompetent person $hich $ere

made $ith an agent of such person in cases in

$hich the agent is sll ali"e and competent to

tesfy. 'ut the tesmony of the ad"erse party

must be conned o those transacons or

communicaons $hich $ere had $ith the

agent. ()oni, et al., ". 0ourt of *ppeals, et al.,

1<< 0R* 2;1!

?o< protecon of t+e dead #anM$ $tatute i$

<aived4

'y not objecng to plain:Ss tesmony onprohibited maers. (+arella ". Reyes, 12 &hil.

1!

'y cross-e#amining the plain: on prohibited

maers. (6ongco ". >ian@on, FP &hil. IQ8!

'y calling $itnesses to tesfy on prohibited

maers. (*rroyo ". *@ur, AI &hil. <Q;!

hen the plain:Ss deposion is taen by the

representa"e of the estate or $hen counsel

for the representa"e cross-e#amined the

plain: as to maers occurring during the

deceasedSs lifeme. ()oni, et al., ". 0ourt of

*ppeals, et al., 1<< 0R* 2;1!

C!SE4 +r. approaches +r. 0 to borro$ &1PP,PPP

to be paid ne#t year. +r. 0 gi"es +r. the amount

+r. 0 did not re3uire +r. to e#ecute a promissory

note. * day before the agreed date of payment, +r

died. +r. 0 $ent to the e#ecutor of the estate of

+r. and claims the payment of the debt.

=n this case, +r. 0 is incompetent to tesfy as

to the transacon he had $ith +r. .

D* %rivile&ed Co##unicaon

,* arital %rivile&e – Rule 1;P, ec. 2< (a!

Husband or the $ife, during or a9er the

marriage, cannot be e#amined $ithout the consent

of the other as to any communicaon recei"ed in

condence by one from the other during the

marriage

' E:CE%)4

=n a ci"il case by one against the other, or

=n a criminal case for a crime commied by one

against the other or the laerSs direct

descendants or ascendantsJ

C!SE4 =f the communicaon is made in front of the

children of the husband and $ife. 0an the pri"ilege

be in"oed\ ?, if the children are sll minors.

Note4 6he assumpon is any communicaon gi"en

by one spouse to the other is presumably

condenal because there is no standard gi"en in

the Rules.

A((!ica/ons of t'e marita! (rivi!e$ed

commncia/on r!e:

,9 "ery communicaon bet$een spouses is

presumed to be condenal. (e#ton ". e#ton, 12Q

=a. <8AJ igmore, ec. 2;;I!

09 0ommunicaons made in the presence of third

pares are not condenal, unless the third person

may be considered as an agent of the spouses.

(Eloyd ". +iller, I1 =nd. 22<!

29 0ommunicaons o"erheard by third persons

remain condenal as bet$een the spouses, but

the third person $ho o"erheard may be called upon

to tesfy. (&eople ". 0arlos, <A &hil. I2I!

69 0ommunicaons coming into the hands of third

persons, $hether legally or illegally, remain

condenal as bet$een the spouses, but the third

person may be called upon to tesfy. (&eople, andHammons, supra!

'ut if the third person ac3uired no$ledge of the

communicaon by collusion and "oluntary

disclosure on the part of either of the spouses, he

thereby becomes an agent of such spouses so that

the pri"ilege is claimable against him. (=bid.!

9 0ommunicaons intended for transmission to

third persons are not condenal. (7.. ". *npolo,

;A &hil. A2I!

8aiver of t+e #arital privile&ed co##unicaon

rule4



6he pri"ilege is claimable by the spouse not

called as $itness, so that it its $ai"able only by him

or herJ and it is $ai"able by any act of such spouse

$hich might be considered as an e#press or implied

consent to the disclosure of the communicaon.

(&eople ". Hayes, 1<P .?. <8<!

0* !=orney'Client %rivile&e – Rule ;P, ec. 2< (b!

*n aorney cannot, $ithout the consent of

his client, be e#amined as to

*ny communicaon made by the client to him,

or

His ad"ice gi"en thereon in the course of, or

$ith a "ie$ to, professional employment,

nor can an aorneySs secretary, stenographer,

or cler be e#amined, $ithout the consent of

the client and his employer, concerning any fact

the no$ledge of $hich has been ac3uired in

such capacityJ

&ri"ilege is o$ned by the client. =t is he $ho can

in"oe the pri"ilege. =f the client $ai"es the

pri"ilege, no one else including the aorney can

in"oe it. 'ence it the client is as+ed on cross(e)amina&on of his communica&ons to hislawyer and reveals the same there would be awaiver. There is also a waiver if the client doesnot object to the a*orneyGs tes&mony.

The a*orney(client privilege may not beinvo+ed to refuse to divulge the iden&ty of theclient, ECE-TJ 425 %hen a strong probability e)iststhat revealing the name would implicate that

person in the very same ac&vity for which he sought the lawyerGs adviceF 495 %hen disclosure would openthe client to liabilityF 485 %hen the name would

furnish the only lin+ that would form the chain of tes&mony necessary to convict. 4Regala vs.$andiganbayan, 2;;A5

L!S) LIN DOC)RINE4 on-pri"ileged

informaon, such as identy of the client is

protected if the re"elaon of such informaon

$ould necessarily re"eal the pri"ileged informaon.

- t is enough that the client reasonably believed that the person consulted is a lawyer.

- Communica&ons may refer to an&cipated li&ga&ons or may not refer to any li&ga&on at

all.- -rivilege does not e)tend tocommunica&ons where the clientGs purpose isthe furtherance of a future intended crime or

fraud 2* %+y$ician'%aent %rivile&e B Rule ;P, ec. 2< (c!

* person authori@ed to pracce medicine,

surgery or obstetrics cannot in a 0=>=M 0*, $ithout

the consent of the paent, be e#amined as to

*ny ad"ice or treatment gi"en by him or

*ny informaon $hich he may ha"e ac3uired in

aending such paent in a professional

capacity, $hich informaon $as necessary to

enable him to act in capacity, and $hich $ould

blacen the reputaon of the paentJ

6his pri"ilege belongs to the paent, so that it is

only he that can claim or $ai"e it. =t is $ai"able

e#pressly or impliedly. =t is impliedly $ai"ed lie

any other pri"ilege rule. (&enn. +utual Mife =ns

0o. ". iler, 1PP =nd. Q2!

6he $ai"er may be by a contract as in medica

or life insurance

hen the paent ans$ers 3uesons on cross

e#aminaon, there is $ai"er

7nder Rule 28 R40, the court may order a party

to submit to a physical or mental e#aminaon

so long as the mental or physical condion is in

dispute. 6he party e#amined may re3uest a

report of the e#aminaon. 'y doing so, he

$ai"es any pri"ilege he may ha"e in that acon

regarding the tesmony of e"ery other person

$ho has e#amined him in respect of the same

e#aminaon.

This privilege does not apply when thedoctor is presented as an e)pert witness and onlyhypothe&cal problems were presented to him. 4"imvs. C#, 2;;956* %rie$t' %enitent %rivile&e B Rule ;P, ec. 2< (d!

* minister or priest cannot, $ithout the

consent of the person maing the confession, be

e#amined as to

*ny confession made to or

*ny ad"ice gi"en by him in his professiona

character in the course of discipline enjoined by

the church to $hich the minister or pries

belongs

* %ublic Ocer %rivile&e B Rule ;P, ec. 2< (e!

* public o5cer cannot be e#amined during his

term of o5ce or a9er$ards, as to communicaons

made to him in o5cial condence, $hen the court

nds that the public interest $ould su:er by the

disclosure.

H* %arental and Filial %rivile&e – Rule 1;P, ec. 2F

* person cannot be compelled to tesfy

against his parents, other direct ascendants

children or other direct descendants.

.'. 6here is an inconsistency bet$een the R40 andEamily 0ode $ith respect to this pri"ilege. R40

pre"ails since it too e:ect in 1Q8Q and is made by

the 0. hile the Eamily 0ode too e:ect in 1Q8Q

and though substan"e is procedural in character.

8+o are not covered and #ay be co#pelled to

te$fy4

1! Rela"es by a5nity.

2! 'rothers and sisters.

;! *unts, uncles, nephe$s, nieces.

<! 0ousins of $hate"er degree.

F! 4ther collateral rela"es.



Note4 &arental and lial tesmony dies not

prohibit "oluntary tesmony or compelled

tesmony against rela"es by a5nity or collateral

rela"es.

Note4 =t is belie"ed that adopted and

adopter are co"ered by the parental and lial

tesmonial pri"ilege rule but only insofar as the

parent and child is concerned. =t does not e#tend to

the direct ascendants of the adopter because the

adop"e relaon is bet$een the adopter and the

adopted only. 6he reason for this opinion is the

raonale behind the pri"ilege, $hich is to preser"e

harmonious relaons bet$een parent and child

$hich could be ruptured through tesfying in court.

Eurthermore, perjury may result because the parent

or the child may gi"e false tesmony to protect the

other.

!d#i$$ion$ and Confe$$ion$

!d#i$$ion$ B Rule 1;P, ec. 2I

- *ny act, declaraon or omission of a party as to a

rele"ant fact may be gi"en in e"idence against him.

$uch admission may be received inevidence not only against the party who made it or his successors(in(interest but also against third

persons. 4!iacrucis vs. C#, 2;@A5The silence of an accused under custody or his

failure to deny statements by another implica&nghim in a crime cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his par&cipa&on in the commission of the crime. 4-eople vs. #legre, 2;K;5Se!f-servin$ evidence

*n admission fa"orable to the party maing it.

(Michauco ". *tlanc )ulf U &acic 0o., 8< &hil. ;<2!

a. Self'$ervin& or favorable ad#i$$ion$ #ade out

of court not ad#i$$ible4 RE!SONSD

1! * man may be safely belie"ed if he declares

against his o$n interest, but not if he

ad"ocates his interest. (Michauco ". *tlanc

)ulf U &acic 0o., 8< &hil. ;<2!

2! =t is e#cluded on the same ground as any

hearsay e"idence, that, the lac of opportunity

for cross-e#aminaon by the ad"erse party.

(aonal e"elopment 0o., ". ormenSs

0ompensaon 0ommission, 1Q 0R* 8IF!

b* 8+en $elf'$ervin& or favorable ad#i$$ion$ aread#i$$ibleD

1! =f made in open court

2! gi"ing full opportunity to the ad"erse party

;! to e#ercise his right of cross-e#aminaon.

Rule ,0- Sec* 6 v$* Rule ,25 Sec* 0H

Eirst is a /7=0=*M *+==4, $hich is

conclusi"e upon the admier $hether in $ring or

oral. 6his applies to ci"il, criminal cases and e"en

special proceedings.

econd is an O6R*/7=0=*M *+==4.

7nder this rule, the admission is admissible only if it

is against the interest of the admier. (other$ise it

is a self-ser"ing statement!

E)ampleJ light is considered a disservingact, since it is prejudicial to the interest of theaccused. light is considered as circumstan&alevidence of the guilt of the accused. <*+ non(ightcannot be used as evidence to prove his innocence,because that will be considered as an act that is

favorable to the interest of the accused.E(tra'@udicial Confe$$ion v$* !d#i$$ion

* confession4 as dis/n$is'ed from

admission, is a declaraon made at any me by a

person, "oluntarily and $ithout compulsion or

inducement, stang or acno$ledging that he had

commied or parcipated in the commission of a

crime.

6he term, ad#i$$ion, on the other hand, is

usually applied in criminal cases to statements of

fact by the accused $hich do not directly in"ol"e an

acno$ledgment of the guilt of the accused or of

criminal intent to commit the o:ense $ith $hich he

is charged. (7.. ". 0orrales, 28 &hil. ;IF!

Admission " si!ence.

a* *n act or declaraon made

1! in the presence and

2! $ithin the hearing or

;! obser"aon

b* of a party $ho does or says nothing

c* $hen the act or declaraon

1! is such as naturally to call for acon o

comment if not true, and

2! $hen proper and possible for him to do

so,

d* may be gi"en in e"idence against him. (ec. ;2

Rule 1;P, R40 arrangement and numbering

supplied!

E(cepon$ to t+e rule on ad#i$$ion by $ilence or

in$tance$ <+ere t+ere i$ no ad#i$$ion by $ilenceD

,9 here no good reason e#ists for the party to

comment on the act or declaraon (>eil ". trong,

1P >t. <FF!, as $hen the act or declaraon $as not

specically directed to the party $ho remained

silent. (8P *.M.R., *nno., 12A2!

09 hen the party had no opportunity to comment

on the act or declaraon. (&eople ". Ranario, <Q&hil. 22P!

29 here the act or declaraon $as made in the

course of an o5cial in"esgaon. (&eople ". 6ia

Eong, Q8 &hil. IPQ!

69 hen silence is upon ad"ice of counsel. (&eople

". Xo@lo$si, 11F *.M.R. 1FPF!

Re$ inter alio$ acta alteri nocere non debet or re$

inter alio$ acta Rule

(Eirst &art of Rule! tatements made or maers

accomplished bet$een t$o pares cannot prejudice

a third party. ('lan@a ". *rcangel, 21 0R* <!



6he rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an

act, declaraon, or omission of another, e#cept as

hereina9er pro"ided. (ec. 28, Rule 1;P, R40!

E(cepon$ to re$ inter alio$ acta4

,9 hen there is a raonal similarity or

resemblance bet$een the condions gi"ing rise to

he fact o:ered and the circumstances surrounding

the issue or fact to be pro"ed. (0ru@, et al., ". 0ourt

of *ppeals, et al., ).R. o. 12IA1;, prom. /uly 2A,

1QQ8!

09 =n acons based on fraud and deceit, because it

sheds light on the state of mind or no$ledge of a

personJ it pro"ides insight into such personSs mo"e

or intentJ it unco"ers a scheme, design or planJ or it

re"eals a mistae. (0ru@, supra!

29 (>icarious *dmissions!- 6he rights of a party may

be prejudiced by the act, declaraon or omission of

another $hen bet$een the party maing the

admission and against $hom it is o:ered there

e#ists a relaon ofD

a9 partnershipJ

b9 agencyJ

c9 joint interestJ

d9 conspiracyJ or

e9 pri"ity.

E(cepon$ to t+e rule t+at e(tra@udicial $tate#ent$

of an accu$ed i#plican& a co'accu$ed #ay not be

uliPed a&ain$t t+e la=er4

7,9 the co-accused impliedly ac3uiesced in or

adopted the confession by not 3uesoning its

truthfulnessJ

709 the accused persons "oluntarily and

independently e#ecuted idencal confessions

$ithout collusion and $ithout contradicon by the

others presentJ

729 the accused admied the facts a9er being

apprised of the confessionJ

769 if they are charged as co-conspirators of the

crime $hich $as confessed by 1 of the accused and

the confession is used only as a corroborang

e"idenceJ

79 the confession is used as circumstanal e"idence

to sho$ the probability of parcipaon by the co-

conspiratorJ

7H9 the confessant tesed for his co-defendantJ7/9 the co-conspiratorNs e#trajudicial confession is

corroborated by other e"idence on record. (&eople

"s. Ra3uel, 1QQI!

Rule on ad#i$$ion by co'partner or a&ent4

,9 6he act or declaraon of a partner or

09 agent $ithin the scope of his authority and

during the e#istence of the partnership or agency,

29 may be gi"en in e"idence against such party

69 a9er the partnership or agency

a9 is sho$n by e"idence C(tesmonial or

documentary, $hich may be 2ndary e"idence!T

b9 other than such act or declaraon.

9 6he same rule applies to the act or declaraon of

a joint o$ner, joint debtor, or other person jointly

interested $ith the party* (ec. 2Q, Rule 1;P, R40

arrangement and numbering supplied!

Rule on ad#i$$ion by con$pirator4

,9 6he act or declaraon of a conspirator

09 relang to the conspiracy and during it

e#istence,

29 may be gi"en in e"idence against the co

conspirator

69 a9er the conspiracy

a9 is sho$n by e"idence (0ircumstana

"idence- cannot be pro"en by documentary

e"idence, since conspirators do not normally reduce

their agreement in $ring!

b9 other than such act or declaraon. (ec

;P, Rule 1;P!

]6his refers to e#trajudicial acts and declaraons of

a conspirator and not to his tesmony as a $itness

in the trial. (&eople ". *tencio, M-222F18, /an. 1A

1QI8!

Rule on !d#i$$ion by %rivie$ – Rule ,253 Sec* 2,

- here one deri"es tle to property from another,

the act, declaraon, or omission of the laer, $hile

holding the tle, in relaon to the property, is

e"idence against the former

#ampleD O, father of V, $hile the former

$as ali"e, openly told his ac3uaintances, that the

land $here his house stood had already been sold

to ?. 'ere, the declara&on by is not admissibleagainst P, the sole heir of I, because the statementwas made aer held &tle to the land.Second %art of Inter alio$ acta Rule 7Si#ilar !ct$ a$

Evidence9

Rule 1;P, ecs. ;<

- "idence that one did or did not do a certain thing

at one me is not admissible to pro"e that he did or

did not do the same or similar thing at another

meJ but it may be recei"ed to pro"e a specic

intent or no$ledgeJ identy, plan, system, scheme,

habit, custom or usage, and the lie.

Confe$$ion$ B Rule 1;P, ec. 1;;J Rule 11F (e!J *rt

===, ec. 1A, 1Q8A 0onstuon

- eclaraon of an accused acno$ledging his guiltof the o:ense charged, or of any o:ense necessarily

included thereinJ may be gi"en in e"idence against

him.

- 0onfession is e"idence of high orderD

,9 6here is no e"idence of a higher 3uality than a

confessionJ =t represents the out$ard manifestaon

of a man. 7nless, therefore, the confession is

nullied by e"idence of duress, the same is

admissible as an e"idence of guilt of a high 3uality

(&eople ". )arcia, F< &hil. ;2Q, ;F8!

09 =f a confession be true and "oluntary, the



deliberate act of the accused $ith a full

comprehension of its signicance, there is no

impediment to its admission as e"idence and it then

becomes e"idence of a high order, since it is

supported by the presumpon, a "ery strong one,

that no person of normal mind $ill deliberately and

no$ingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a

crime, especially if it be a serious crime, unless

prompted by truth and conscience. (&eople ". Vea,

et al., 1;P 0R* 8A, 88!

Proa/ve va!e of recanta/ons: 6hey are looed

upon $ith disfa"or as recantaons are usually

secured through inmidaon or for a monetary

consideraon. (+olina ". &eople, 2FQ 0R* 1;8!

>eneral rule on ad#i$$ibility of confe$$ion4 *

confession is admissible only against the accused

$ho made it and not against his co-accused, for as

against the laer, the confession $ould be hearsay

and res inter alios acta. (&eople ". 6alledo, 8F &hil.

F;;!

E(cepon$4 $hen a confession is admissible

against co-accusedD

1! hen the confession of an accused implicang

his co-accused is made judicially at a joint trial (7..

". +acamay, ;I &hil. 8Q;! or $hen the e#trajudicial

statements implicang a co-accused are repeated in

open court (&eople ". 4la, ).R. o. M-<A1<A, /uly ;,

1Q8A!, because the co-accused as a chance to cross-

e#amine.

2! hen the o:er in e"idence of an e#trajudicial

confession against a co-accused is not objected to.

(&eople ". *en@a, 8I &hil. FAI!

;! hen the co-accused against $hom an

e#trajudicial confession is o:ered had, by his acts,

conducts and declaraons adopted he confession as

his o$n. (&eople ". *en@a, supraJ &eople ".

4rencia, <A &hil. QAP!

<! here se"eral accused, $ithout collusion, made

e#trajduicial confessions $hich are idencal in

essenal details and corroborated by other

e"idence, such confession is admissible against the

others. (&eople ". &elonia, M-1<I2<, /uly 2<, 1QIP!

F! 6he confession of a conspirator is admissible

against his co-conspirator pro"ided it $as made

during the e#istence of the conspiracy. (ec. ;P,Rule 1;P, R40J &eople ". Ramire@, M-F8AF, +ay 1F,

1QF;!

I! hen the recitals in the e#trajudicial confession

of an accused is corroborated in its important

details by other proofs in the record, it may be

admied against the other accused. (&eople ".

>illanue"a, M-12I8A, /uly ;1, 1QI2!

E(tra@udicial confe$$ion$ idencal in #aterial

re$pect$ 7al$o Qno<n a$ interlocQin& confe$$ion$9

admissible against all declarantsD

1! !$ circu#$tanal evidence* #trajudicial

confessions independently made $ithout collusion

and are idencal $ith each other in their material

respects and conrmatory of the other are

admissible as circumstanal e"idence against co-

accused implicated therein to sho$ the probability

of the laerSs actual parcipaon in the commission

of the crime. (&eople ". ncipido, et al., 1<I 0R*

<Q2!

2! !$ corroborave evidence* 6hey are admissible

as corrobora"e e"idence against the other

accused, if it is clear from other facts and

circumstances presented that persons other than

the declarants themsel"es parcipated in the

commission of the crime charged and pro"ed. (=bid.!

6hey are $hat is commonly no$n as

interlocing confession and constute an e#cepon

to the general rule that e#trajudicial

confessionsadmissions are admissible in e"idence

only against the declarants thereof. (=bid.!

6he in"ocaon of amnesty is in the nature

of a plea of confession and a"oidance, $hich means

that the pleader admits the allegaons against him,

but disclaims liability therefor on account of

inter"ening facts $hich, if pro"ed, $ould bring the

crime charged $ithin the scope of the amnesty

proclamaon. (&eople ". alig, et al., 1;; 0R* IQ

cing >era ". &eople, A 0R* 1F;!

8+at i$ #eant by corpu$ delic B

a. =t refers to a parcular crime and

signies that the specic o:ense had been actually

commied by someone, being composed of t$o

elementsD

1! certain results $ere produced, and

2! someone is criminally responsible.

(&eople ". +ar3ue@, AA &hil. 8;!

b. =t also means actual commission of the

crime charged. (&eople ". +adrid, 88 &hil. 1J &eople

". anche@, 8Q &hil. <2;!, or the specic fact of loss

or injury. (&eople ". )arcia, QQ &hil. ;81!

E(a#ple$ of corpu$ delic4

a. =n murder or homicide, the corpus delic is the

fact of death (&eople ". )arcia, QQ &hil. ;81!, $hichmay be pro"ed e"en circumstanally. (&eople ".

asota, Q1 &hil. 111J &eople ". +oro *nsang, Q; &hil

<<!.

b. =n robbery or the9, the fact of loss. (&eople ".

iem, AF &hil. II8!

c. =n arson, the fact of burning, (&eople ". +ar3ue@,

AA &hil. 8;J &eople ". +ones, F8 &hil. <I!

d. =n an a:ray, the fact that pistol shots $ere heard

and a bystander $as illed by one of the shots

constute e"idence of corpus delic, $hich is the

"iolent death of a person, $hether feloniously



caused or not. (&eople ". ocum, AA &hil. 1P18!

0on"icon for murder proper e"en if "icmNs body is

not producedD =n all crimes against persons in $hich

the death of the "icm is an essenal element of

the o:ense, there must be sasfactory e"idence of

the fact of death and the identy of the "icm that

a crime has been commied $hich is $hat corpus

delic really means.

6he failure of the prosecuon to produce the body

of the "icm does not imply the absence of corpus

delic for the term does not refer to the body of the

murdered person. (&eople ". 0enteno, et al., 1;P

0R* 2PQ!

' Sec* ,/3 !rt III – No per$on $+all be co#pelled to

be a <itne$$ a&ain$t +i#$elf*

The opera&ve act in determining whether the right against self(incrimina&on has beenviolated is when the police inves&ga&on is no longer a general inDuiry into an unsolved crime but hasbegun to focus on a par&cular suspect who hasbeen ta+en into custody by the police to carry out a

process of interroga&on that lends itself to elici&ngincriminatory statements and not the signing by thesuspect of his supposed e)trajudicial confession.4-eople vs. Compil, 2;;<5

:y aS)ing their signatures on the bo)es,accused in e6ect made a tacit admission of thecrime charged. These signatures are tantamount toan e)trajudicial confession made without theassistance of counsel, which is not sanc&oned by the:ill of Rights. 4-eople vs. %ong Chuen Ming, 2;;A5

#ny confession, including a re(enactment without admoni&on of the right to silence and tocounsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence. 4-eople vs. Iip %ai Ming, 2;;A5

The declara&on of an accused e)presslyac+nowledging his guilt of the o6ense may be givenin evidence against him and any person, otherwisecompetent to tes&fy as a witness who heard the

confession is competent to tes&fy as to thesubstance of what he heard if he heard andunderstood it. 4-eople vs. MaDueda, 2;;<5

Co#pro#i$e$ B Rule 1;P, ec. 2A

1.0i"il 0ases B *n o:er of compromise is not an

admission of any liability, and is not admissible

against the o:eror.

2. 0riminal 0ases B *n o:er of compromise by the

accused may be recei"ed in e"idence as an implied

admission of guilt O0&6 in cases in"ol"ing 3uasi-

o:enses

(criminal negligence! or those allo$ed by la$ to be

compromised.

- * plea of guilty later $ithdra$n, or an unaccepted

oGer of a plea of guilty to lesser o:ense, is not

admissible in e"idence against the accused $ho

made the plea or o:er.

)+e >ood Sa#aritan Rule4 *n o:er to pay or the

payment of medical, hospital or other e#penses

occasioned by an injury is not admissible in

e"idence as proof of ci"il or criminal liability for the

injury.

t has long been held that in cases of publiccrimes, the accused is permi*ed to show that theo6er was not made under a consciousness of guiltbut merely to avoid the inconvenience ofimprisonment of for some other reason whichwould jus&fy a claim by the accused that the o6erwas not in truth an admission of his guilt or ana*empt to avoid the legal conseDuences whichwould ordinarily ensue therefrom. 4-eople vs.7odoy, 2;;<5

# plea of forgiveness may be considered asanalogous to an a*empt to compromise. 4-eoplevs. 1e 7uman, 2;;A5

#n o6er to compromise does not reDuire thata criminal complaint be Hrst Hled before the o6ercan be received as evidence against the o6eror.4-eople vs. Iparriguirre, 2;;K5

+8E ?ear$ay Rule

,* )e$#onial no<led&e – Rule ,253 Sec* 2H

1 hat can a $itness tesfy to\

- * $itness can tesfy only to those facts $hich he

no$s of his personal no$ledge [ those $hich are

deri"ed from his o$n percepon, e#cept a

other$ise pro"ided in these rules.

The hearsay evidence rule applies also toaSdavits when the supposed aSant neveriden&Hed the aSdavit and there was noopportunity for the prosecu&on to cross(e)amine

himher. 4-eople vs. :rioso, 2;K25.The tes&mony of a witness regarding astatement made by another person, if intended toestablish the truth of the facts asserted in thestatement is clearly hearsay evidence. t isotherwise if the purpose is merely to establish the

fact that the statement was made, or the tenor ofsuch statement. 4-eople vs. Cusi, 2;A<5

The tes&mony of a witness on theconfession made to him by the accused is nothearsay. 'e is tes&fying to a fact which he +nows ofhis personal +nowledge 4was tes&fying to the fact



that the accused told him that he stabbed thevic&m5 and not to the truth of the statement of theaccused. 4-eople vs. 7addi, 2;@;5

E)amples of hearsay evidenceJ25 The tes&mony of a witness as to what he hasheard another person say about the facts in dispute.4-eople v. Reyes, KA -hil. 8<=F #ldecoa Q Co., v.%#rner :arnes Q Co., 83 -hil. 2<85 N/TEJ $eeconcept of independent relevant statement.95 #Sdavits. 4MarisfosDue v. "una, "(;3;<, May 9<,2;<KF -eople v. -ag+aliwagan, KA -hil. =<K5

0enera! r!e: #Sdavits without presen&ng aSant in court is mere hearsayJ Thecons&tu&onal right to confronta&on precludesreliance on aSdavits. $uch a cons&tu&onalsafeguard cannot be sa&sHed unless theopportunity is given to the accused to test thecredibility of any person, who, by aSdavit ordeposi&on would impute the commission of ano6ense to him. t would be to disregard one of themost valuable guarantees of a person accused ifsolely on the aSdavits presented, his guilt could be

predicated. 4-eople v. $antos, et al., 28; $CR# <@A(<@K ci&ng -eople v. "avare, 98 $CR# 28325 E&ce(/ons: when aSdavits are givenweightJ

25 %here said aSdavits are overwhelming,uncontroverted by competent evidence and not inherently improbable. 4Top(%eldManufacturing, nc. v. ECE1, $.#., et al., 28@$CR# 289595 0nder the Rule on $ummary -rocedure

for civil casesF85 %hen a mo&on is based on facts notappearing of record the court may hear thema*er on aSdavits or deposi&ons

presented by the respec&ve par&es, but thecourt may direct hat the ma*er be heardwholly or partly on oral tes&mony ordeposi&ons. 4$ec. K, Rule 288, R/C5

85 # le*er o6ered in evidence to establish the factsin issue. 4-astor v. 7aspar, 9 -hil. <;9F -eople v.

Carlos, =K -hil. A9A5=5 # medical cer&Hcate to the e)tent of the injuries found by the doctor on the o6ended partys body.41e 7uia v. Meralco, =3 -hil. K3A5<5 # resolu&on of the municipal council of a certainmunicipality as to the character of an accused in acriminal case. 40.$. v. Tanjuatco, 2 -hil. 8K=5A5 Newspaper #r&cles( 41ouble dec+ hearsay or1ouble hearsay5

+'eor" of t'e 'earsa" r!eJ %hen a humanu*erance is o6ered as evidence of the truth of the

fact asserted in it, the credit of the assertorbecomes the basis of inference, and therefore theasser&on can be received as evidence only whenmade on the witness stand, subject to the test ofcross(e)amina&on.

+#, C,NCEP+S ,; 8EARSAB EVIENCE:

2. $econd hand informa&on 4not derived from personal +nowledge of witness5

9. Tes&mony by a witness derived from his personal +nowledge :0T the adverse partyis not given opportunity to cross(e)amineE)ample 4No. 95J -lain&6 presents witness

#. # tes&Hes in court on ma*ers personally+nown to him. #er direct e)amina&on,court tells that defendant can crosse)amine on ne)t scheduled hearing. /n thene)t scheduled hearing witness # no longerappears and could no longer be located.UThe remedy here now is to as+ that thetes&mony of witness # be stric+en out sinceit now becomes hearsayO

Ra/ona!e e'ind t'e non-admissii!it" of 'earsa"

evidence:

25 # witness can tes&fy only to those facts which he+nows of his own +nowledgeF and 95 To preserve the right of par&es to cross(e)aminethe original witness or person claiming to have+nowledge of the transac&on or occurrence.4-eople v. -ag+aliwagan, KA -hil. =<K5The right to cross(e)amine he adverse partyswitnesses is essen&al in the administra&on of jus&ce

for it is the only means of tes&ng the credibility ofwitnesses and their tes&mony, and this right is notavailable in respect of hearsay evidence since hedeclarant is not in court. 41onnelly v. 0.$., 99@ 0.$.9=85

Princi(!e of Inde(endent!" Re!evant Statements

( 0nder this principle regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, the fact that such statementshave been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does

not apply, and the statements are admissible asevidence. Evidence as to the ma+ing of suchstatement is not secondary but primary, for thestatement itself may cons&tute a fact in issue or becircumstan&ally relevant as to the e)istence of sucha fact.( ndependent relevant statements are hearsay incharacter but not legal hearsay, hence they are notconsidered as e)cep&ons to the hearsay rule.

=llustraonD * $as drining $ith his buddies. * told

them thatD W+y neighbor is a thiefY. Mater on *Ns



$hen ased for the identy of her assailant, is too

"ague to be gi"en such proba"e "alue in

determining the culpability of the accused.

RE!SON4 7nlie an oral or a $rien

declaraon, a simple gesture of the hand

unaccompanied by $ords, is open to "arious

interpretaons by the $itness $ho teses to its

e#istence. 6hus, the e"idence comes to the court

couched in the $itnessS second hand percepon

and possibly, imbued $ith his personal meanings

and biases. 6his is $hat maes hearsay e"idence

objeconable. 6he second hand e"idence is placed

before the court $ithout the benet of cross-

e#aminaon by the party against $hom it is

brought, nor of any other means of assessing the

competence and credibility of the source. (&eople ".

4la, ).R. o. M-<A1<A, /uly ;, 1Q8A!

C!SE4 6he crime charged is rape $ith homicide. 6he

"icm before death tells to the police

in"esgatordoctorD W= $as raped.Y C6his is not a

dying declaraon, because the statement has

nothing to do $ith the cause and circumstances

surrounding the death. 'ut this may be admied as

part of res gestaeO

9.9 Res 0estae B Rule 1;P, ec. <2

- hat are admissible as part of the res gestaeD

- tatements made by a person $hile a starng

occurrence is taing place or immediately prior or

subse3uent thereto $ith respect to the

circumstances thereof

- tatements accompanying an e3ui"ocal act

material to the issue and gi"ing it legal signicance

64 040&6D

*. pontaneous tatements

'. tatements accompanying 3ui"ocal *cts-

3ui"ocal means ambiguousF capable of di6erent interpreta&ons.

E:!%LE4 a! &46*47 6*6+6D O

barged into the house of ?, ed her to a chair and

robbed her. O brought ?Ns maid to a bedroom and

raped her. ? could hear the maid cryingD WHu$ag^

+aa$a a sa ain^Y. hen O Ked, ? $ith the maid

rushed to the police staon and told the police $hathappened. 6he maid told the police that despite her

pleas O sll raped her. 6he police noced that the

maid $as hysterical and on the "erge of collapse. O

$as charged $ith robbery $ith rape. uring the trial

the maid could no longer be located. 6he

prosecuon presents the policeman to tesfy on

$hat the maid told him. CThe tes&mony would behearsay but as an e)cep&on to the hearsay rule. Thestatements made by the maid fall within the resgestae ruleO

b! %7=>40*M>R'*M *06D * $itness

teses on the stand for the plain: in a collecon

case $here the defendant denies ha"ing borro$ed

&1P,PPP from the plain:. 6he debt is no

e"idenced by a promissory note because plain:

claims that defendant had orally borro$ed money

from him in the past and had al$ays paid. 6his me

he refuses to pay. 6he $itness teses that one yea

ago he sa$ the plain: gi"e money to the

defendant. *nd that he heart the plain: said thatD

WHereNs the money you are borro$ing from me.Y

Eurther, he said that he heard the defendant say

W6han you, = $ill pay one year a9er.Y CHere the

e3ui"ocal act of handing the money $as gi"en

signicance by the statement of the plain:T

D;IN> DECL!R!)ION v$* RES >ES)!E

Time when statements madeJ ?=) 0M*R*6=4

statements must be made a9er the injury has been

inKicted upon the applicant.

R )6*- in so far as

startling occurrence is concerned, the statements

could be made prior or simultaneous $ith or aethe startling occurrence.

1eath of declarantJ ?=) 0M*R*6=4- declarant

must die

R )6*- no need for declarant

to die

1eclarantJ ?=) 0M*R*6=4- must be the "icm

R )6*- anybody

%EO%LE v$* CLOUD 70H SCR! 6/09 Concept of

independently relevant $tate#ent$ and re$ &e$tae

applied $i#ultaneou$ly* N*"* dyin& declaraon

#ay liQe<i$e be applied $i#ultaneou$ly <it+

independently relevant $tate#ent

Vosephine #guilar was at the emergency room of ahospital to have some s&tches removed from herdaughterGs head when she saw a boy being carriedby a man, followed by an old woman who was

shou&ng hysterically. The boyGs face was swollenand bruised and his body covered with dry blood.The old woman, apparently the boyGs grandmother,cried and repeatedly screamed. >-inatay siya ngsariling amaW?. The old woman told the peopleinside the emergency room that the boyGs fatherhad beaten him up, &ed his hands, and stabbed him.

Ruling of $CJ nsofar as the statements of RuHna #lconyes4old woman5 are concerned, they areadmissible as part of the res gestae, they havingbeen caused by and did result from the startling, if



NoteJ %hen it comes to presenta&on of evidence concerning the good or bad moral character, the on!" evidence admissible is evidenceof C/MM/N RE-0T#T/N. $o if character evidenceis allowed a li&gant cannot present proof that he isof good moral character.

E)ampleJ * parish priest of the community

$here the accused belongs is presented as $itness.

*nd the parish priest teses that the accused goes

to mass e"eryday and recei"es holy communion.

C6he tesmony is not admissible to sho$ the

accusedNs good moral characterJ +oral character for

purposes of e"idence can be demonstrated 4M? by

e"idence of R&76*6=4T. $o the parish priest should tell the court what is the reputa&on of theaccused in the community.

%rinciple of NE>!)IVE RE%U)E

=f in a community nothing good or bad is heard

about a parcular person, the presumpon is that

he is really a good person, because that Ko$s from

the established principle in substan"e la$ that

e"eryone is acng in good faith.

2.A Entries in t'e Corse of <siness B Rule 1;P,

ec. <2J Rule 8, R

hen madeD ntries made at, or near the me of

transacons to $hich they refer

'y $hom madeD by a person deceased, or unable to

tesfy, $ho $as in a posion to no$ the facts

therein stated,

6reatment of such e"idenceD prima facie e"idence, if

such person made the entries in his professional

capacity or in the performance of duty and in the

ordinary or regular course of business or duty.

Rule 8, econ 1. Hearsay rule e#ceponD *

memorandum, report, record or data compilaon of

acts, e"ents, condions, opinions, or diagnoses,

made by electronic, opcal or other similar means

at or near the me of or from transmission or

supply of informaon by a person $ith no$ledge

thereof, and ept in the regular course or conduct of

a business ac"ity, and such $as the regular

pracce to mae the memorandum, report, record,or data compilaon by electronic, opcal or similar

means, all of $hich are sho$n by the tesmony of

the custodian or other 3ualied $itnesses.

Rule 8, econ 2. 6his presumpon may be

o"ercome by e"idence of the untrust$orthiness of

the source of informaon or the method or

circumstances of the preparaon, transmission or

storage thereof.

2.8 ,Dcia! Records B Rule 1;P, ec. <<

hen madeD ntries made at, or near the me of

transacons to $hich they refer.

'y $hom madeD by a person deceased, or unable to

tesfy, $ho $as in a posion to no$ the facts

therein stated,

6reatment of such e"idenceD prima facie e"idence, i

such person made the entries in his professiona

capacity or in the performance of duty and in the

ordinary or regular course of business or duty.

The report submi*ed by a police oScer inthe performance of his du&es on the basis of hisown personal observa&on of the facts reported,may properly be cons&tuted as an e)cep&on.4Calte) vs. #frica, 2;AA5

Entries in a police blo*er are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries. 4-eople vs.Cabuang, 2;;85

2.Q Commercia! Lists B Rule 1;P, ec. <F

"idence of statements of maers of interest to

persons engaged in an occupaon contained in a

list, register, periodical, or other published

compilaon is admissible as tending to pro"e the

truth of any rele"ant maer so stated if that

compilaon is published for use by persons engaged

in that occupaon and is generally used and relied

upon by them therein.

2.1P Learned +rea/ses B Rule 1;P, ec. <I

* published trease, periodical or pamphlet on a

subject of history, la$, science, or art is admissible

as tending to pro"e the truth of a maer stated

therein if the court taes judicial noce, or a $itness

e#pert in the subject teses, that the $riter of the

statement in the trease, periodical or pamphlet is

recogni@ed in his profession or calling as e#pert in

the subject.

2.11 Prior +es/mon" B Rule 1;P, ec. <A

'y $hom madeD a $itness deceased or unable to

tesfy,

hen gi"enD in a former case or proceeding, judicia

or administra"e, in"ol"ing the same pares and

subject maer,hen admissibleD may be gi"en in e"idence against

the ad"erse party $ho had the opportunity to cross-

e#amine him.

W7nable to tesfyY refers to an inability

proceeding from a gra"e cause almost amounng to

death as $hen the $itness is old and has lost the

po$er of speech. (6an "s. 0*, 1QIA!

Conduct and C+aracter a$ Evidence

Conduct B Rule 1;P, ecs. ;<-;F

- "idence that one did or did not do a certain thing



at one me is not admissible to pro"e that he did or

did not do the same or similar thing at another

meJ but it may be recei"ed to pro"e a specic

intent or no$ledgeJ identy, plan, system, scheme,

habit, custom or usage, and the lie.

- *n o:er in $ring to pay a parcular sum of

money or to deli"er a $rien instrument or specic

personal property is, if rejected $ithout "alid cause,

e3ui"alent to the actual producon and tender of

the money, instrument, or property.

C+aracter B Rule 1;P, ec. F1J Rule 1;2, ec. 1<

)eneral RuleD 0haracter e"idence is not admissible,

Cbecause it is purely circumstanalT e#cepons-

1. =n criminal cases B

- *ccused [ may pro"e his good moral character

$hich is pernent to the moral trait in"ol"ed in the

o:ense charged.

- &rosecuon [ may not pro"e his bad moral

character unless in rebual.

- 4:ended &arty [ hisher good or bad moral

character may be pro"ed if it tends to establish in

any reasonable degree the probability or

improbability of the o:ense charged.

2. =n ci"il cases B

- "idence of the moral character of a party in a ci"il

case is admissible only $hen pernent to the issue

of character in"ol"ed in the case.

- itness [ "idence of hisher good character is

not admissible unl such character has been

impeached.

%hile evidence of another crime is, as arule, not admissible in a prosecu&on for robberyF it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as whenit tends to iden&fy defendant as the perpetrator and tends to show is presence at the scene of the crimeor in the vicinity of the crime at the &me charged, or when it is evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime. 4-eople vs. rang, 2;8K5

7ood or bad moral character of the vic&mis not necessary in a crime of murder where the+illing is commi*ed through treachery or

premedita&on. 4-eople vs. $oliman, 2;<K5

V* Opinion Rule B Rule 1;P, ecs. <8-FP

)eneral RuleJ 6he opinion of a $itness is not

admissible (R1;P, `<8!

#ceptD

1. #pert $itnessD opinion of a $itness on a maer

re3uiring special no$ledge, sill, e#perience or

training $hich he sho$n to possess (R1;P, `<Q!

2. 4rdinary $itnessD 6he opinion of a $itness for

$hich proper basis is gi"en, may be recei"ed in

e"idence regarding Z

(a! 6he identy of a person about $hom he has

ade3uate no$ledgeJ

(b! * hand$ring $ith $hich he has su5cien

familiarityJ and

(c! 6he mental sanity of a person $ith $hom he is

su5ciently ac3uainted.

(d! 6he $itness may also tesfy on his impression

of the emoon, beha"ior, condion o

appearance of a person. (R1;P, `FP!

There is no precise reDuirement as to themode in which s+ill or e)perience shall have beenacDuired. $cien&Hc study and training are notalways essen&al to the competency of a witness asan e)pert. Xnowledge acDuired by doing is no lessvaluable than that acDuired by study. 41ilag Co. vs.Merced, 2;=;5

-olygraph test has not as yet a*ainedscien&Hc acceptance as a reliable and accuratemeans of ascertaining truth or decep&on. 4-eoplevs. #doviso, 2;;;5

E)pert opinions are not ordinarilyconclusive in the sense that they must be acceptedas true on the subject of their tes&mony, but aregenerally regarded as purely advisoryF the courtsmay place whatever weight they choose upon suchtes&mony and may reject it, if they Hnd that it isinconsistent with the facts in the case or otherwiseunreasonable.4-unalan v. Commission on Elec&ons,et al., 7.R. No. 29AAA;5

Tes&mony of handwri&ng e)pert notindispensable to C/ME"EC. 'andwri&ng e)perts,while probably useful, are not indispensable ine)amining or comparing handwri&ngF this can bedone by the C/ME"EC itself. t was ruled by the$upreme Court that evidence aliunde is not allowedto prove that a ballot is mar+ed, an inspec&on ofthe ballot itself being suScient. 44-unalan v.Commission on Elec&ons, et al., 7.R. No. 29AAA;5

VI* "urden of %roof and %re$u#pon$

1. 'urden of &roof B Rule 1;1, ec. 1

'urden of proof (Ris of non-persuasion!D duty of a

party to present e"idence on the facts in issue

necessary to establish his claim or defense by the

amount re3uired by la$.0riminal 0asesD 6he burden of proof is on the

prosecuon, because under Rule 1;; the accused is

entled to ac3uial unless his guilt is demonstrated

by proof beyond reasonable doubt

0i"il 0asesD 6he usual principle is that $hoe"er

maes an a5rma"e allegaon has the burden of

proof

=nfringement casesD 6he burden of proof to

substanate a charge of infringement is $ith the

plain:. 'ut $here he plain: introduces the

patent in e"idence, and the same is in due form



there is created a prima facie presumpon of its

correctness and "alidity. 6he decision of the

0ommissioner of &atent (no$ the irector of the

=ntellectual &roperty 45ce!, in granng the patent

is presumed to be correct.

6he burden of going for$ard $ith the e"idence

(burden of e"idence! then shi9s to the defendant to

o"ercome by competent e"idence this legal

presumpon. (+aguan ". 0ourt of *ppeals, et al.,

1<I 0R* 11I, 11A!

6$o separate burdens in 'urden of &roofD

1. 'urden of going for$ard- that of producing

e"idence

2. 'urden of persuasion- burden of

persuading the trier of fact that the

burdened party is entled to pre"ail

=llustraon of going for$ard $ith the e"idenceD Eor

e#ample a9er the e#istence of a debt has been

pro"en by the creditor the burden of pro"ing

payment de"ol"es upon the debtor. here the

debtor introduces e"idence of payment, the burden

of going for$ard $ith the e"idence - as disnct from

the general burden of proof- shi9s to the creditor

$ho is then under the duty of producing e"idence

to sho$ non-payment. (/imene@, et al, ". MR0, et

al., ).R. o,. 11IQIP, prom. *pril 2, 1QQI!

=n short, the burden of going for$ard is the

burden of producing e"idence.

E;;EC+ ,; A<SENCE ,; EVIENCE or no

evidence is (resented

0R=+=*M 0*D *ccused is ac3uied

0=>=M 0*D

a. hen defendant does not le an ans$er-

&lain: $ins

b. hen defendant les an ans$er and sets

up purely nega"e defenses and no

e"idence is presented by both sides-

efendant $ins because plain: has not

carried his burden

c. hen defendant les an ans$er and sets

up a5rma"e defenses and no e"idence ispresented by both sides- &lain: $ins

E)ampleJ The defendant Hled ananswerJ > admit that borrowed money from the

plain&6, but the plain&6 has no reason to run aer me because have paid that account long &meago.? Uf no evidence is presented by both sides then

plain&6 wins because the defendant admi*ed thee)istence of loan. #nd it is the defendantGs burdento prove his aSrma&ve defense.O

"URDEN OF EVIDENCE' the duty resng upon a

party, by means of e"idence, to create or meet a

prima facie case.

"URDEN OF %ROOF v$* "URDEN OF EVIDENCE

:urden of -roof NE!ER $'T$, $hile :urden ofEvidence is TR#N$ERRE1 from one li&gant toanother depending on the progress of trial.

=llustraonD &lain: les a complaint for reco"ery of

a defaulted loan. efendant les an ans$er $ith a

nega"e defense, denying the e#istence of the loan

C *t the start, the plain: has the burden of proof

and also burden of e"idence, he should go to tria

and present e"idence to sho$ that he has a cause of

acon. =f he has introduced enough proof that he

has a cause of acon, the burden of e"idence $il

no$ be shi9ed to the defendant. =f defendant

presents enough e"idence to pro"e his nega"e

defense then the burden of e"idence is shi9ed again

to the plain: on rebual e"idence.T

Can t+e accu$ed in a cri#inalKcivil ca$e before

pre$enn& +i$ o<n evidence a$certain

condionally or provi$ionally <+et+er t+e

evidence pre$ented by t+e pro$ecuon i$ enou&+

to convict +i#B

?es. =n a criminalci"il case, the

accused(defendantplain:! can easily determine

the senment of the court concerning the 3uantum

of e"idence presented by the

prosecuon(defendantplain:! by simply ling a

de#urrer to evidence $ith lea"e of court.

%RINCI%LE OF NE>!)IVIN> !VEREN)

* nega"e a"erment do not ha"e to be pro"en

7M the nega"e a"erment is an essenal part

of the cause of acon or defense.

E)ampleJ n an informa&on for illegal possession of Hrearms, the informa&on will contain an avermentthat the accused does not have a license to possessthe HrearmUnega&ve avermentO.

Y n this case, the nega&ve averment is anessen&al part of the commission of the crime, hence

this must be proven.

Doctrine of euipoi$e or Euiponderance Rule

%here the evidence on an issue of fact is ineDuipoise or there is doubt on which side theevidence preponderates, the party having theburden of proof fails upon that issue. 4Rivera v.Court of #ppeals, et al., 7.R. No. 22<A9<, prom.

Vanuary 98, 2;;@5 Therefore, as neither party was able to ma+eout a case, neither side could establish its cause ofac&on and prevail with the evidence it had. They



are thus no be*er o6 than before they proceeded toli&gate, and, as a conseDuence thereof, the courtscan only leave them as they are. 4Rivera, supraci&ng Municipality of Candijay, :ohol v. Court of

#ppeals, 9<2 $CR# <835

2. &resumpons B Rule 1;1, ecs. 2-<

&resumpon- an inference as to the e#istence or

non-e#istence of a fact $hich courts are permied

to dra$ from the proof of other facts.

CL!SSIFIC!)IONS

,* %RESU%)ION AURIS OR OF L!8- a deducon

$hich the la$ e#pressly directs to be made from

parcular facts

-+ust be made $hene"er the facts appear

$hich furnish the basis for the inference

-Reduced to #ed rules and form part of the

system of jurisprudence

0* %RESU%)ION ?OINIS OR OF F!C)' a

deducon $hich reason dra$s from facts pro"ed

$ithout an e#press direcon from the la$ to that

e:ect

-iscreonary on the court

-eri"ed from circumstances of a parcular

case through common e#perience of manind

CL!SSIFIC!)IONS OF %RESU%)IONS OF L!8

1. 0onclusi"e- not permied to be o"ercome by any

proof to the contrary

2. isputable- la$ permits to be o"ercome or

contradicted

2.1 Conc!sive

2.1.1. hene"er a party by his o$n declaraon, act,

omission, has led another B

1 to belie"e a parcular thing to be

true *

2 to act upon such belief,

he cannot in any ligaon arising out of such

declaraon, act or omission be permied to falsify

it. (stoppel!

2.1.2. 6he 6*6 is not permied to deny the

tle of his landlord at the me of the04++0+6 of the relaon of landlord and

tenant bet$een them.

NoteJ There is also a conclusive presump&on under the Rule 8;, which is a

public policy principle ofres judicata 4a judgment is conclusive upon the &tleto the thing or upon the poli&cal or legal condi&onof a person, Zjudgment in rem or in personam[5

2.2 is(ta!e

CL!SSIFIC!)IONS4

1. &resumpon of innocence (&resumpon of good

faith!

2. &resumpon of regularity of o5cial and judicia

acts

;. &resumpon of regularity of pri"ate transacons

- &erson is innocent of a crime or $rongJ

- 7nla$ful act is done $ith an unla$ful intentJ

- &erson intends the ordinary conse3uences of his

"oluntary actJ

- &erson taes ordinary care of his concernsJ

- "idence $illfully suppressed $ould be ad"erse if

produced

E"EMENT$J a. 6he suppression is $ilful. (ec. ;-e, Rule

1;1, R40! connue

b. 6he suppression is not in the e#ercise o

a pri"ilege.

c. 6he e"idence suppressed is not merely

corrobora"e.

d. 6he e"idence is at the disposal only o

the suppressing party.

46D =nstances $here ad"erse

presumpon from suppression of e"idence does not

applyD

a. =f the e"idence is at the disposal of both

pares. (&eople ". ucay, 22F 0R* 1!

b. 6he suppression $as not $illful.

c. 6he suppressed e"idence is merely

corrobora"e or cumula"e.

d. 6he suppression is an e#ercise of a

pri"ilege. (&eople ". a"aja, 22P 0R* I2<!

- +oney paid by one to another $as due to the

laerJ

- 6hing deli"ered by one to another belonged to the

laerJ

- 4bligaon deli"ered up to the debtor has been

paidJ

- &rior rents or installments had been paid $hen a

receipt for the later ones is producedJ

- * person found in possession of a thing taen in

the doing of a recent $rongful act is the taer anddoer of the $hole actJ other$ise, that things $hich

a person possesses or e#ercises acts of o$nership

o"er, are o$ned by himJ

- &erson in possession of an order on himself for the

payment of the money or the deli"ery of anything

has paid the money or deli"ered the thing

accordinglyJ person acng in public o5ce $as

regularly appointed or elected to itJ

- 45cial duty has been regularly performedJ

- * court or judge acng as such, $hether in the

&hilippines or else$here, $as acng in the la$fu



e#ercise of jurisdiconJ

- *ll the maers $ithin an issue raised in a case

$ere laid before the court and passed upon by itJ all

maers $ithin an issue raised in a dispute

submied for arbitraon $ere laid before

arbitrators and passed upon by themJ

- &ri"ate transacons ha"e been fair and regularJ

- ordinary course of business has been follo$edJ

- there $as a su5cient consideraon for a contractJ

- negoable instrument $as gi"en or indorsed for a

su5cient consideraonJ

- *n indorsement of negoable instrument $as

made before the instrument $as o"erdue and at the

place $here the instrument is datedJ

- * $ring is truly datedJ

- Meer duly directed and mailed $as recei"ed in the

regular course of the mailJ

- *bsentee of A years, it being not no$n $hether

or not he is ali"e, is considered dead for all purposes

e#cept for succession.

[ Eor the purpose of opening his successionD an

absence of 1P years, if disappeared a9er age of AF,

absence of F years.

[ 6he follo$ing shall be considered dead for all

purposes including the di"ision of the estate among

the heirsD

[ &erson on board a "essel lost during a sea "oyage,

or an aircra9 $ith is missing, $ho has not been

heard of for < years since the loss of the "essel or

aircra9J

[ +ember of the armed forces $ho has taen part

in armed hoslies, and has been missing for <

yearsJ

[ &erson $ho has been in danger of death under

other circumstances and $hose e#istence has not

been no$n for four yearsJ

[ pouse, of a married person absent for <

consecu"e years, may contract a subse3uent

marriage if he or she has $ell-founded belief that

the absent spouse is already deathJ 2 years in case

of disappearance, $here there is a danger of death

the circumstances hereinabo"e pro"ided. 'efore

marrying again, the spouse present must instute a

summary proceedings as pro"ided in the Eamily

0ode and in the rules for declaraon of presump"edeath of the absentee, $ithout prejudice to the

e:ect of reappearance of the absent spouse.

- *c3uiescence resulted from a belief that the thing

ac3uiesced in $as conformable to the la$ or factJ

- 6hings ha"e happened according to the ordinary

course of nature and ordinary nature habits of lifeJ

- &ersons acng as copartners ha"e entered into a

contract of co-partnershipJ

- * man and $oman deporng themsel"es as

husband and $ife ha"e entered into a la$ful

contract of marriageJ

- &roperty ac3uired by a man and a $oman $ho are

capacitated to marry each other and $ho li"e

e#clusi"ely $ith each other as husband and $ife

$ithout the benet of marriage or under "oid

marriage, has been obtained by their joint e:orts,

$or or industry.

- =n cases of cohabitaon by a man and a $oman

$ho are not capacitated to marry each other and

$ho ha"e ac3uire properly through their actual joint

contribuon of money, property or industry, such

contribuons and their corresponding share

including joint deposits of money and e"idences of

credit are e3ual.

- =f the marriage is terminated and the mothe

contracted another marriage $ithin three hundred

days a9er such terminaon of the former marriage

these rules shall go"ern in the absence of proof to

the contraryD

- * child born before 18P days a9er the

solemni@aon of the subse3uent marriage is

considered to ha"e been concei"ed during such

marriage, e"en though it is born $ithin the ;PP days

a9er the terminaon of the former marriage.

- * child born a9er 18P days follo$ing the

celebraon of the subse3uent marriage i

considered to ha"e been concei"ed during such

marriage, e"en though it be born $ithin the ;PP

days a9er the terminaon of the former marriage.

- * thing once pro"ed to e#ist connues as long as is

usual $ith things of the nature

- 6he la$ has been obeyedJ

- * printed or published boo, purporng to be

printed or published by public authority, $as so

printed or publishedJ

- * printed or published boo, purporng contain

reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country

$here the boo is published, contains correct

reports of such casesJ

- * trustee or other person $hose duty it $as to

con"ey real property to a parcular person has

actually con"eyed it to him $hen such presumpon

is necessary to perfect the tle of such person or his

successor in interestJ

- #cept for purposes of succession, $hen 2 persons

perish in the same calamity, and it is not sho$n $hodied rst, and there are no parcular circumstances

from $hich it can be inferred, the sur"i"orship is

determined from the probabilies resulng from

the strength and the age of the se#es, according to

the follo$ing rulesD

[ 'oth 1FD older sur"i"edJ

[ 'oth _ IPD younger sur"i"edJ

[ 4ne 1FJ other _IPD 1F sur"i"edJ

[ 'oth _1F, IP and the se# be di:erent, the male is

deemed to ha"e sur"i"ed, if the se# be the same,

the olderJ



[ 4ne 1F or _, and the other bet$een those ages,

the laer is deemed to ha"e sur"i"ed.

- 6hat if there is a doubt, as bet$een t$o or more

persons $ho are called to succeed each other, as to

$hich of them died rst, $hoe"er alleges the death

of one prior to the other, shall pro"e the sameJ in

the absence of proof, they shall be considered to

ha"e died at the same me. (Fa!

The presump&on that evidence not produced or willfully suppressed is adverse to the party, will not apply if the evidence is at the disposal of both the defense and the prosecu&on and if theevidence is merely conclusive. 4-eople vs.-adiernos, 2;KA5

VII* %re$entaon of Evidence

oteD 6he Rules apply to ummary &rocedure but in

a modied form, since in ummary &rocedure the

tesmonies of the $itnesses, (in ci"il cases! $ill be

reduced into $ring in the form of a5da"it. Hence,

there is no direct, cross, re-cross or re-direct

e#aminaon.

*5ant is not allo$ed in ummary &rocedure

to embody hearsay tesmony.

=n criminal cases under ummary &rocedure,

the a5da"its of the $itnesses tae the place of the

direct e#aminaon. 6here is cross e#aminaon

VOIR DIRE- preliminary e#aminaon of $itnesses

for the purpose of establishing $hether or not a

$itness really is 3ualied as such. (Mie$ise done in

e#aminaon of a child $itness, but it is only the

judge $ho can as 3uesons, plain: and

defendant can $rite their 3uesons and gi"e it to

the judge!

NoteJ /rdinary witnesses are not allowed to bee)amined in a narra&ve form, e)cept a child witness.

A. #aminaon of itnesses

1. 8o? done B Rule 1;2, ec. 1

open courtunder oath or a5rmaon

- +ode of ans$ering

)eneral RuleD oral

#ceponD

o itness is incapacitated to spea or

o %ueson calls for a di:erent mode of

ans$er

2. Ri$'ts and ,!i$a/ons B Rule 1;2, ec. ;

4bligaon of a $itnessD ans$er 3uesons, although

his ans$er may tend to establish a claim against

him.

Rights of a $itnessD

2.1 6o be protected from irrele"ant, improper, o

insulng 3uesons, and from harsh or insulng

demeanorJ

2.2 ot to be detained longer than the interests o

jusce re3uireJ

2.; ot to be e#amined e#cept only as to maers

pernent to the issueJ

2.< ot to gi"e an ans$er $hich $ill tend to subject

him to a penalty for an o:ense unless other$ise

pro"ided by la$J or

2.F ot to gi"e an ans$er $hich $ill tend to

degrade his reputaon, unless it to be the "ery fact

at issue or to a fact from $hich the fact in issue

$ould be presumed. 'ut a $itness must ans$er to

the fact of his pre"ious nal con"icon for an

o:ense.

0aseD upposing a $itness refused to ans$e

because he feels the 3ueson is incriminatory

Ho$e"er, the court directs the $itness to gi"e an

ans$er and the $itness obeys the order of the

court. Mater on the ans$er turns out to be

incriminatory and later on the $itness $as indicted

for the commission of this o:ense, can his

tesmony in court be gi"en in e"idence against him

in the form of an admission\

4, because the $itnsess has inially objected

and he ga"e the ans$er only in compliance $ith an

order of the court. *ccording to some decisions that

could be treated as a compelled tesmony gi"en

under duress and therefore could not be used

against the $itness.

E:CE%)IONS )O RULE !>!INS) SELF

INCRIIN!)ION

,* U$e I##unity- the $itness $ill sll be indicted

for the commission of an o:ense, but the

statements gi"en by the $itness cannot be used

against him. He is not immuni@ed from prosecuon.

0* )ran$aconal I##unity' 6here is absolute

immunity, both to prosecuon and use of the

statements gi"en by the $itness.

;. ,rder in t'e E&amina/on B Rule 1;2, ec. <

;.1 irect #aminaon B Rule 1;2, ec. F

- #aminaon-in-chief of a $itness by the party

presenng him on the facts rele"ant to the issue.

;.2 0ross-#aminaon B Rule 1;2, ec. I

- %hen conductedJ upon terminaon of direct

e#aminaon

- Ma*ers coveredJ $itness may be cross-e#amined

by the ad"erse party as to B



[ *ny maers stated in the direct e#aminaon, or

connected there$ith, $ith su5cient fullness and

freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and

freedom from interest or bias, or the re"erse, and

[ 6o elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.

=mplied $ai"er of cross-e#aminaon B 6he party

$as gi"en the opportunity ela &a@ "s. =*0 (1Q8A!

+#, R*LES ,N LIMI+S ,; CR,SS E=AMINA+I,N

1. En&li$+ Rule- $here a $itness is called to tesfy

to a parcular fact, he becomes a $itness for all

purposes and may be fully cross-e#amined upon all

maers material to the issue, the e#aminaon not

being conned to the maers in3uired about in the

direct e#aminaon.

2. !#erican Rule- restricts cross-e#aminaon to

facts and circumstances $hich are connected $ith

the maers that ha"e been stated in the direct

e#aminaon of the $itness. (applies $hen $itness

is the accused in a criminal caseJ and $hen $itness

is hosle or ad"erse party $itness!

;.; Re-direct #aminaon B Rule 1;2, ec. A

( %hen conductedJ a9er the cross-e#aminaon of

the $itness has been concluded

( %hy conductedJ to e#plain or supplement his

ans$ers gi"en during the cross-e#aminaon. 4n re-

direct-e#aminaon, the court in its discreon may

allo$ 3uesons on maers not dealt $ith during

the cross-e#aminaon.

;.< Re-cross #aminaon B Rule 1;2, ec. 8

- *d"erse party may re-cross-e#amine the $itness

on maers stated in his re-direct e#aminaon, and

also on such other maers as may be allo$ed by

the court in its discreon, upon the conclusion of

the re-direct e#aminaon.

<. Reca!!in$ #itnesses B Rule 1;2, ec. Q

- *9er the e#aminaon of a $itness has been

concluded by both sides has been concluded, the

$itness cannot be recalled $ithout lea"e of court.

6he court $ill grant or $ithhold lea"e in its

discreon as the interests of jusce may re3uire.

There must be a sa&sfactory showing of some concrete, substan&al ground 4i.e. par&cularly iden&Hed material points were not covered in thecross(e)amina&onF par&cularly described vital documents were not presented to the witnessF thecross(e)amina&on was conducted in so inept amanner as to result in a virtual absence thereof.4-eople vs. Rivera, 2;;25

F. Leadin$ and Mis!eadin$ es/ons B Rule 1;2,

ec. 1P

Meading 3uesons

%uesons that suggest to the $itness the

ans$er, $hich the e#amining party desires, are

leading 3uesons.

7eneral RuleJ ot allo$ed

E)cep&onsJ1. 4n cross e#aminaonJ

2. 4n preliminary maersJ

;. hen there is a di5culty is geLng direct

and intelligible ans$ers from a $itness $ho

is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is

of feeble mind, or a deaf-muteJ

<. 4f an unwilling or hos&le witnessJ or

o * $itness may be considered as

un$illing or hosle only if so declared

by the court upon ade3uate sho$ing o

his -

ad"erse interest,

unjused reluctance to tesfy, or

his ha"ing misled the party into

calling him to the $itness stand.

H* 4f a $itness $ho is an ad"erse party or an

o5cer, director, or managing agent of a

public or pri"ate corporaon or of a

partnership or associaon $hich is an

ad"erse party.

%hen the answer is derived from a leadingDues&on the evidence has no proba&vevalue at all even if there is no objec&on to aleading Dues&on.

i$leadin& ue$on$

16hose that assume as true a fact not yet

tesed to by the $itness, or contrary to that

$hich he has pre"iously stated.

2 ot allo$ed.

DOC)RINE OF INCO%LE)E )ES)ION;D hen

cross e#aminaon cannot be done or completed

due to causes aributable to the party $ho o:ered

the $itness, the incomplete tesmony is rendered

incompetent and should be stricen from the

record. E(cept4 $here the prosecuon $itness $as

e#tensi"ely cross-e#amined on the material points

and therea9er failed to appear and cannot beproduced despite a $arrant for his arrest. (&eople "

)4rospe, )R F1F1;, +ay 1F, 1Q8<!

Scope of @ud&eM$ parcipaon at trialD * judge $ho

presides at a trial is not a mere referee. He must

ac"ely parcipate therein by direcng counsel to

the facts in dispute, by asing clarifying 3uesons

and by sho$ing an interest in a fast a fair trial.

(0larin ". ?atco, FI 4.). AP<2, o". 1<, 1QIP!



He can interrogate $itnesses to elicit the

truth, to obtain claricaon, or to test their

credibility. (&eople " +oreno, 8; &hil. 28I!

Ho$e"er, this po$er must be e#ercised by

the court sparingly and judiciously. (&eople ".

Eerrer, << 4.). 112!. 4f course, the judge cannot

curtail counselSs right to interrogate $itnesses.

(&eople ". 'edia, 8; &hil. QPQ!

6here is no prohibion against the judge

conducng the e#aminaon of the $itness. 6he

counsel may object to the 3uesons propounded by

the judge.

%o<er of court to $top furt+er evidenceD

1! 6he court may stop

2! the introducon of further tesmony

;! upon any parcular point

<! $hen the e"idence upon it is already so full

F! that more $itnesses to the same point

I! cannot be reasonably e#pected

A! to be addionally persuasi"e.

'ut this po$er should be e#ercised $ith cauon *

hen the e"idence already presented on one point

is su5cient and the party merely sees to present

cumula"e e"idence $hich cannot produce

addional persuasi"e e:ect or that he is not sure of

$hat the other $itnesses $ould tesfy, the court

may in its sound discreon stop the introducon of

such further e"idence. (&eople ". Reyes, et al., 1;;

0R* F1!

Role of a=orney durin& pre$entaon of evidence D

*n aorney has a dual role to perform rela"e to

pro"ing the truth respecng a maer of fact.

He must ensure that all e"idence supporng the

material allegaons, $hether raised in the pleadings

or not are admied by the court. His other role is to

bloc the admission of e"idence supporng his

opponentsS material allegaons $hether raised in

the pleadings or not.

=n order to perform this dual role the aorney

should ensure that the e"idence he o:ers are

admissible in accordance $ith the Rules of 0ourt

and those of his opponent are properly objected tofor being inadmissible

. Im(eac'ment of #itnesses

I.1. =mpeachment of *d"erse &artyNs itness B Rule

1;2, ec. 11

- Ho$ doneD

by contradictory e"idenceJ

by e"idence that his general reputaon for truth,

honesty or integrity is badJ or

by e"idence that he has made at other mes

statements inconsistent $ith his present tesmony.

- "idence of parcular $rongful acts is not allo$ed

e#cept that it may be sho$n by the e#aminaon of

the $itness, or the record of the judgment, that he

has been con"icted of an o:ense.

I.2. =mpeachment of 4$n itness B Rule 1;2, ec

12

- )eneral RuleD 6he party producing a $itness is not

allo$ed to impeach the laerNs credibility.

- #ceponD 6he $itness is an un$illing or hosle

$itness.

[ * $itness may be considered as un$illing

or hosle only if so declared by the court upon

ade3uate sho$ing of his -

ad"erse interest,

unjused reluctance to tesfy, o

-

his ha"ing misled the party into

calling him to the $itness stand.

- 6he impeachment may be made by the party

presenng the hosle or un$illing $itness in al

respects as if he had been called by the ad"erse

party, e#cept by e"idence of bad character. He may

also be impeached and cross-e#amined by the

ad"erse party, but such cross-e#aminaon must only

be on the subject maer of his e#aminaon-in-chief

I.;. =mpeachment by &rior =nconsistent tatements

B Rule 1;2, ec. 1;

- 'efore a $itness can be impeached by e"idence

that he has made at other mes statements

inconsistent $ith his present tesmonyD the

statements must be related to him, $ith the

circumstances of the mes and places and the

persons present, and he must be ased $hether he

made such statements, and if so, be allo$ed to

e#plain themJ if the statements be in $ring they

must be sho$n to the $itness before any 3ueson

is put to him concerning them 7layin& t+e

predicate9*

Layin& t+e foundaon or layin& t+e ba$i$' refers to

a situaon $here an e"idence $hich is other$ise

incompetent $ill be introduced in e"idence becauseit falls under the e#cepons to that rule on

e#clusion.

#ampleD =f a party desires to introduce

secondary or substuonary e"idence he must rst

lay the foundaon or lay the basis. He must rst

pro"ed that there $as a $ring duly e#ecuted and

that the original has been lost or destroyed.

A. E&c!sion and Se(ara/on of #itnesses B Rule

1;2, ec. 1<

- 6he judge may e#clude from the court any $itness



competence of the child

throughout his tesmony. (`I(f!!

III. 6esfying

*. 4athD 'efore tesfying, a child shall tae an

oath or a5rmaon to tell the truth. (`A!

'. #aminaon

1. Ho$ conducted B

7eneral RuleJ open court, unless the

$itness is incapacitated to spea, or the

3ueson calls for a di:erent mode of

ans$er, the ans$ers of the $itness shall be

gi"en orally. (`8!

E)cep&onsJa) #clusion of the public B

( hy madeD

6o protect the right to pri"acy

of the child or

=f the court determines on the

record that re3uiring the child

to tesfy in open court $ould

cause psychological harm to

him, hinder the ascertainment

of truth, or result in his

inability to e:ec"ely

communicate due to

embarrassment, fear, or

midity.

( =n maing its order, the court shall

consider the de"elopmental le"el

of the child, the nature of the

crime, the nature of his tesmony

regarding the crime, his

relaonship to the accused and to

persons aending the trial, his

desires, and the interests of his

parents or legal guardian.

( 6he court may, motu proprio,e#clude the public from the

courtroom if the e"idence to be

produced during trial is of such

character as to be o:ensi"e to

decency or public morals.

( 6he court may also, on moon of

the accused, e#clude the publicfrom trial, e#cept court personnel

and the counsel of the pares.

(`2;!

b) 6he court may order that persons

aending the trial shall not enter or

lea"e the courtroom during the

tesmony of the child. (`2<!

c) +oon by party $ho presents a child

$itness or the guardian ad litem of

such child $itness may, ho$e"er, mo"e

the court to allo$ him to tesfy in the

manner pro"ided in this Rule (`8!D

i. "ive(lin+ television tes&mony incriminal cases where the child is avic&m or a witness. (`2F!

ho may apply for an order that

tesmony of the child be taen in a

room outside the courtroom and

be tele"ised to the courtroom by

li"e-lin tele"isionD

1 prosecutor,

2 counsel or the

3 guardian ad litem

&eriod for applicaonD 6he person

seeing such an order shall apply at

least "e (F! days before the tria

date, unless the court nds on the

record that the need for such an

order $as not reasonably

foreseeable.

Hearing on the applicaonD

6he court may motu proprio hea

and determine, $ith noce to the

pares, the need for taing the

tesmony of the child through li"e

lin tele"ision.

6he judge may 3ueson 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

pares. 6he 3uesons of the judge

shall not be related to the issues at

trial but to the feelings of the child

about tesfying in the courtroom.

6he judge may e#clude any person

including the accused, $hose

presence or conduct causes fear to

the child.

4rder denyinggranng use of li"elin 6>D

6he court shall issue an orde

granng or denying the use of li"e-

lin tele"ision and stang the

reasons therefor.

Eactors considered by the court in

granngdenying applicaonD

(1!6he age and le"el o



de"elopment of the childJ

(2!His physical and

mental health, including any

mental or physical disabilityJ

(;!*ny physical,

emoonal, or psychological

injury e#perienced by himJ

(<!6he nature of the

alleged abuseJ

(F!*ny threats against

the childJ

(I!His relaonship $ith

the accused or ad"erse partyJ

(A!His reacon to any

prior encounters $ith the

accused in court or else$hereJ

(8!His reacon prior to

trial $hen the topic of

tesfying $as discussed $ith

him by parents or

professionalsJ

(Q!pecic symptoms of

stress e#hibited by the child in

the days prior to tesfyingJ

(1P!6esmony of e#pert

or lay $itnessesJ

(11!6he custodial

situaon of the child and the

aLtude of the members of his

family regarding the e"ents

about $hich he $ill tesfyJ and

(12!4ther rele"ant

factors, such as court

atmosphere and formalies of

court procedure.

6he court may order that the

tesmony of the child be taen by

li"e-lin tele"ision if there is a

substanal lielihood that the child

$ould su:er trauma from tesfying

in the presence of the accused, his

counsel or the prosecutor as the

case may be. 6he trauma must be

of a ind $hich $ould impair the

completeness or truthfulness of the tesmony of the child.

Ho$ doneD

$here tesmony is taenD in a

room separate from the courtroom

$ho are presentD

o guardian ad litemJ

o one or both of his support

personsJ

o the facilitator

o and interpreter, if anyJ

o a court o5cer appointed

by the courtJ

o persons necessary to

operate the closed-circuit

tele"ision e3uipmentJ and

o other persons $hose

presence are determined

by the court to be

necessary to the $elfare

and $ell-being of the

childJ

- 6he judge, prosecutor

accused, and counsel for the

pares shall be in the

courtroom. 6he tesmony o

the child shall be transmied

by li"e-lin tele"ision into the

courtroom for "ie$ing and

hearing by the judge

prosecutor, counsel for the

pares, accused, "icm, and

the public unless e#cluded.

- =f it is necessary for the child to

idenfy the accused at trial

the court may allo$ the child

to enter the courtroom for the

limited purpose of idenfying

the accused, or the court may

allo$ the child to idenfy the

accused by obser"ing the

image of the laer on a

tele"ision monitor.

- 6he court may set othe

condions and limitaons on

the taing of the tesmony

that it nds just and

appropriate, taing into

consideraon the best

interests of the child.

( 6he tesmony of the child shal

be preser"ed on "ideotape

digital disc, or other simila

de"ices $hich shall be madepart of the court record and

shall be subject to a protec"e

order as pro"ided in secon

;1(b!.

ii. $creens, one(way mirrors, andother devices to shield child fromaccused. (`2I!

ho may apply for an order that

the chair of the child or that a

screen or other de"ice be placed in



the courtroom in such a manner

that the child cannot see the

accused $hile tesfyingD

1 prosecutor or

2 guardian ad litem (consultaon

$ith prosecutor or counsel as

in applicaon for use of li"e-

lin 6>. also re3uired!

4rder granng applicaonD

6he court shall issue an order

stang the reasons and describing

the appro"ed courtroom

arrangement

=f the court grants an applicaon to

shield the child from the accused

$hile tesfying in the courtroom,

the courtroom shall be arranged to

enable the accused to "ie$ the

child.

iii. !ideotaped deposi&on.(`2A!

ho may apply for an order that a

deposion be taen of the tesmony

of the child and that it be recorded

and preser"ed on "ideotape\

1 prosecutor,

2 counsel, or

3 guardian ad litem (consultaon

$ith prosecutor or counsel as in

applicaon for use of li"e-lin 6>.

also re3uired!

hen allo$edD=f the court nds that

the child $ill not be able to tesfy in

open court at trial, it shall issue an

order that the deposion of the child

be taen and preser"ed by

"ideotape.

eposion-taingD

ho are present

o /udge B $ho shall preside atthe "ideotaped deposion of

a childJ

o &rosecutorJ

o defense counselJ

o )uardian ad litemJ

o *ccused, pro"ided that, if

the order of the court is

based on e"idence that the

child is unable to tesfy in

the physical presence of the

accused, the court may

direct the laer to be

e#cluded from the room in

$hich the deposion is

conducted. =n case o

e#clusion of the accused, the

court shall order that the

tesmony of the child be

taen by li"e-lin tele"ision

in accordance $ith secon

2F of this Rule. =f the

accused is e#cluded from the

deposion, it is not

necessary that the child be

able to "ie$ an image of the

accused.

o 4ther persons $hose

presence is determined by

the court to be necessary tothe $elfare and $ell-being

of the childJ

o upport persons, the

facilitator and interpreter, if

anyJ

o 0ourt stenographerJ and

o &ersons necessary to

operate the "ideotape

e3uipment.

4bjecons to tesmony oe"idenceJ rights of the accused

o 4bjecons to deposion

tesmony or e"idence, o

parts thereof, and the

grounds for the objecon

shall be stated and shall be

ruled upon at the me of the

taing of the deposion.

o 6he rights of the accused

during trial, especially the

right to counsel and toconfront and cross-e#amine

the child, shall not be

"iolated during the

deposion.

6he "ideotaped deposion shall be

preser"ed and stenographically

recorded. 6he "ideotape and the

stenographic notes shall be

transmied to the cler of the court

$here the case is pending fo



safeeeping and shall be made a part

of the record.

6he court may set other condions

on the taing of the deposion that it

nds just and appropriate, taing into

consideraon the best interests of

the child, the constuonal rights of

the accused, and other rele"ant

factors.

6he "ideotaped deposion and

stenographic notes shall be subject

to a protec"e order as pro"ided in

secon ;1(b!.

=f, at the me of trial, the court nds

that the child is unable to tesfy for a

reason stated in secon 2F(f! of this

Rule, or is una"ailable for any reason

described in secon <(c!, Rule 2; of

the 1QQA Rules of 0i"il &rocedure, the

court may admit into e"idence the"ideotaped deposion of the child in

lieu of his tesmony at the trial. 6he

court shall issue an order stang the

reasons therefor.

*9er the original "ideotaping but

before or during trial, any party may

le any moon for addional

"ideotaping on the ground of ne$ly

disco"ered e"idence. 6he court may

order an addional "ideotaped

deposion to recei"e the ne$ly

disco"ered e"idence.

hen conductedD 6he court may order that

the tesmony of the child should be taen

during a me of day $hen the child is $ell-

rested. (`1<!

&ro"isions for ease of child in

tesfyingaccommodaons for a child

a. =nterpreter for child (`Q!

Ho$ appointedD the court

motu proprio or upon moon

hen appointedDhen a

child does not understand the

nglish or Eilipino language or

is unable to communicate in

said languages due to his

de"elopmental le"el, fear,

shyness, disability, or other

similar reason

ho may be interpreter\

=f a $itness or member of

the family of the child is the

only person $ho can ser"e as

an interpreter for the child, he

shall not be dis3ualied and

may ser"e as the interpreter of

the child. 6he interpreter

ho$e"er, $ho is also a $itness

shall tesfy ahead of the child.

*n interpreter shall tae anoath or a5rmaon to mae a

true and accurate

interpretaon.

b. Eacilitator to pose 3uesons to

child (`1P!

Ho$ appointedD 6he cour

motu proprio or upon moon,

hen appointedD child i

unable to understand o

respond to 3uesons ased.

ho may be a facilitatorD 6he

facilitator may be a child

psychologist, psychiatrist

social $orer, guidance

counselor, teacher, religious

leader, parent, or rela"e. 6he

facilitator shall tae an oath or

a5rmaon to pose 3uesons

to the child according to the

meaning intended by counsel.

Euncon of facilitatorD

Respec"e counsels for the

pares shall pose 3uesons to

the child only through the

facilitator. 6he 3uesons shal

either be in the $ords used by

counsel or, if the child is not

liely to understand the same

in $ords that are

comprehensible to the child

and $hich con"ey the meaning

intended by counsel.

c. upport persons (`11!

* child tesfying at a judicia

proceeding or maing a

deposion shall ha"e the right

to be accompanied by one o

t$o persons of his o$n

choosing to pro"ide him

emoonal support.

(1!'oth support

persons shall remain

$ithin the "ie$ of the

child during his tesmony.

(2!4ne of the



support persons may

accompany the child to

the $itness stand,

pro"ided the support

person does not

completely obscure the

child from the "ie$ of the

opposing party, judge, or

hearing o5cer.

(;!6he court may

allo$ the support person

to hold the hand of the

child or tae other

appropriate steps to

pro"ide emoonal support

to the child in the course

of the proceedings.

(<!6he court shall

instruct the support

persons not to prompt,

s$ay, or inKuence the

child during his tesmony.

upport person, also a $itness

1 1isapproved if it is

su5ciently established

that the aendance of

the support person

during the tesmony of

the child $ould pose a

substanal ris of

inKuencing or a:ecng

the content of thetesmony of the child.

2 =f allowed his tesmony

shall be presented ahead

of the tesmony of the

child.

d. aing area for child

$itnesses (`12! that is

separate from $aing areas

used by other persons.

e. 0ourtroom en"ironment (`1;!

*imD create a more comfortableen"ironment for the child

court may, in its discreon, direct

and super"ise the locaon,

mo"ement and deportment of all

persons in the courtroom including

the pares, their counsel, child,

$itnesses, support persons,

guardian ad litem, facilitator, and

court personnel.

6he child may be allo$ed to tesfy

from a place other than the

$itness chair.

6he $itness chair or other place

from $hich the child teses may

be turned to facilitate his

tesmony but the opposing party

and his counsel must ha"e a fronta

or prole "ie$ of the child during

the tesmony of the child. 6he

$itness chair or other place from

$hich the child teses may also

be rearranged to allo$ the child to

see the opposing party and his

counsel, if he chooses to loo at

them, $ithout turning his body or

lea"ing the $itness stand.

6he judge need not $ear hi

judicial robe.

othing in this secon or any othe

pro"ision of la$, e#cept o5cial in

court idencaon pro"isions

shall be construed to re3uire a

child to loo at the accused.

*ccommodaons for the child

under this secon need not be

supported by a nding of trauma

to the child.

f. Recess during tesmony (`1F!

6he child may be allo$ed

reasonable periods of relie

$hile undergoing direct, cross

re-direct, and re-cross

e#aminaons as o9en a

necessary depending on hi

de"elopmental le"el.

g. 6esmonial aids (`1I!D use o

dolls, anatomically-correc

dolls, puppets, dra$ings

manne3uins, or any othe

appropriate demonstra"ede"ice to assist him in his

tesmony.

h. moonal security item (`1A!

hile tesfying, a child shal

be allo$ed to ha"e an item of

his o$n choosing such as a

blanet, toy, or doll

i. 0onduct in 3uesoning the

$itnessD

i. 0onduct of counselD a

counsel may be



prohibited from

approaching a child if

it appears that the

child is fearful of or

inmidated by the

counsel. (`18!

ii. +ode of 3uesoningD

- 6he court shall

e#ercise control o"er the

3uesoning of children so

as to

(1! facilitate the

ascertainment of the

truth,

(2! ensure that

3uesons are stated in a

form appropriate to the

de"elopmental le"el of the

child,

(;! protect

children from harassment

or undue embarrassment,

and

(<! a"oid $aste of

me.

- 6he court may

allo$ the child $itness to

tesfy in a narra"e form.

iii. %uesons and

objecons thereto

leading 3uesons in all

stages of e#aminaon of a

child may be allo$ed if the

same $ill further the

interests of jusce (`2P!

4bjecons to 3uesons

should be couched in a

manner so as not to

mislead, confuse, frighten,

or inmidate the child.

(`21!

j. eight gi"en to tesmony of

child $itnessD strongJ

corroboraon not re3uired -His tesmony, if credible by

itself, shall be su5cient to

support a nding of fact,

conclusion, or judgment

subject to the standard of

proof re3uired in criminal and

non-criminal cases. (`22!

IV. ue$on$ of !d#i$$ibility

C* ?ear$ay E(cepon in C+ild !bu$e

Ca$e$ 7T0.9

8+ere ad#i=ed4 child abuse cases

criminal or non-criminal

?o< ad#i=ed4

1) 'efore such hearsay statement may be

admied, its proponent shall mae

no$n to the ad"erse party the

intenon to o:er such statement and

its parculars to pro"ide him a fai

opportunity to object.

a* 0hild is a"ailable

6he court shall, upon

moon of the ad"erse

party, re3uire the child to

be present at the

presentaon of the

hearsay statement fo

cross-e#aminaon by the

ad"erse party.

b. 0hild is una"ailable

the fact of such

circumstance must be

pro"ed by the proponent.

hen una"ailableD

(1!=s deceased

su:ers from physica

inrmity, lac of memory

mental illness, or $ill be

e#posed to se"ere

psychological injuryJ or

(2!=s absent from

the hearing and the

proponent of his

statement has been

unable to procure his

aendance by process o

other reasonable means.

hen the child $itness

is una"ailable, his hearsay

tesmony shall be

admied only i

corroborated by othe

admissible e"idence.

2) =n ruling on the admissibility of such

hearsay statement, the court shal

consider the me, content andcircumstances thereof $hich pro"ide

su5cient indicia of reliability. =t shal

consider the follo$ing factorsD

c. hether there is a mo"e to

lieJ

d. 6he general character of the

declarant childJ

e. hether more than one

person heard the statementJ

f. hether the statement $as



spontaneousJ

g. 6he ming of the statement

and the relaonship bet$een

the declarant child and

$itnessJ

h. 0ross-e#aminaon could not

sho$ the lac of no$ledge of

the declarant childJ

i. 6he possibility of faulty

recollecon of the declarant

child is remoteJ and

j. 6he circumstances surrounding

the statement are such that

there is no reason to suppose

the declarant child

misrepresented the

in"ol"ement of the accused.

. >ideotaped and audiotaped in-depth

in"esga"e or disclosure inter"ie$s in

child abuse cases (`2Q!

hen admissibleD

1 6he child $itness -

(1!=s deceased, su:ers from

physical inrmity, lac of memory,

mental illness, or $ill be e#posed

to se"ere psychological injuryJ or

(2!=s absent from the hearing and

the proponent of his statement has

been unable to procure his

aendance by process or other

reasonable means.

2 'efore the "ideotape or audiotape

is o:ered in e"idence, all pares

shall be a:orded an opportunity to

"ie$ or listen to it and shall be

furnished a copy of a $rien

transcript of the proceedings.

'y $hom conductedD

duly trained members of a

muldisciplinary team or representa"es of

la$ enforcement or child protec"e

ser"ices in situaons $here child abuse issuspected so as to determine $hether child

abuse occurred.

indi"idual conducng the inter"ie$ of

the child shall be a"ailable at trial for

e#aminaon by any party.

&roof of the follo$ing must be gi"en by

party o:ering the "ideotape or audiotapeD

(1!6he "ideotape or audiotape discloses

the identy of all indi"iduals present and at

all mes includes their images and "oicesJ

(2!6he statement $as not made in

response to 3uesoning calculated to lead

the child to mae a parcular statement o

is clearly sho$n to be the statement of the

child and not the product of imprope

suggesonJ

(;!6he "ideotape and audiotape machine

or de"ice $as capable of recording

tesmonyJ

(<!6he person operang the de"ice $as

competent to operate itJ

(F!6he "ideotape or audiotape is authenc

and correctJ and

(I!=t has been duly preser"ed.

>alue of an in"esga"e inter"ie$ that $as

not done as re3uired in this RuleD 6he fact

that an in"esga"e inter"ie$ is not

"ideotaped or audiotaped as re3uired by

this secon shall not by itself constute a

basis to e#clude from e"idence out-of-court

statements or tesmony of the child. =may, ho$e"er, be considered in

determining the reliability of the

statements of the child describing abuse.

. Se(ual abu$e $+ield rule

=nadmissible e"idence in any crimina

proceeding in"ol"ing alleged child

se#ual abuseD

(1! "idence o:ered to pro"e that the

alleged "icm engaged in other se#ua

beha"iorJ and

(2! "idence o:ered to pro"e the se#ua

predisposion of the alleged "icm.

hen admissibleD "idence o

specic instances of se#ua

beha"ior by the alleged "icm to

pro"e that a person other than the

accused $as the source of semen

injury, or other physical e"idence

shall be admissible.

Ho$ admiedD

1. * party intending to o:er

such e"idence mustD

(1! Eile a $rien moon at

least 1F days before trial

specically describing the

e"idence and stang the

purpose for $hich it is

o:ered, unless the court, fo

good cause, re3uires a

di:erent me for ling o

permits ling during trialJ and



(2! er"e the moon on all

pares and the guardian ad litem at least ; days before

the hearing of the moon.

2. 'efore admiLng such e"idence,

the court must conduct a hearing

in chambers and a:ord the child,

his guardian ad litem, the pares,

and their counsel a right to aendand be heard. 6he moon and the

record of the hearing must be

sealed and remain under seal and

protected by a protec"e order set

forth in secon ;1(b!. 6he child

shall not be re3uired to tesfy at

the hearing in chambers e#cept

$ith his consent.

V. 4ther protec"e measures for the child (`;1!

E. 0ondenality of records.

hen records may be releasedD upon $rien

re3uest and order of the court

6o $hom may be releasedD

(1! +embers of the court sta: for

administra"e useJ

(2! 6he prosecung aorneyJ

(;! efense counselJ

(<! 6he guardian ad litemJ

(F! *gents of in"esgang la$

enforcement agenciesJ and

(I! 4ther persons as determined by the

court.

). &rotec"e order

hat are co"eredD *ny "ideotape or audiotape

of a child that is part of the court record

&ro"isos of the protec"e orderD

(1! 6apes may be "ie$ed only by pares,

their counsel, their e#pert $itness, and the

guardian ad litem.(2! o tape, or any poron thereof, shall

be di"ulged by any person menoned in sub-

secon (a! to any other person, e#cept as

necessary for the trial.

(;! o person shall be granted access to

the tape, its transcripon or any part thereof

unless he signs a $rien a5rmaon that he

has recei"ed and read a copy of the protec"e

orderJ that he submits to the jurisdicon of

the court $ith respect to the protec"e orderJ

and that in case of "iolaon thereof, he $ill be

subject to the contempt po$er of the court.

(<! ach of the tape cassees and

transcripts thereof made a"ailable to the

pares, their counsel, and respec"e agents

shall bear the follo$ing cauonary noceD

W6his object or

document and the contents

thereof are subject to a

protec"e order issued by

the court in (case tle!,

(case number!. 6hey shallnot be e#amined, inspected,

read, "ie$ed, or copied by

any person, or disclosed to

any person, e#cept as

pro"ided in the protec"e

order. o addional copies

of the tape or any of its

poron shall be made, gi"en,

sold, or sho$n to any person

$ithout prior court order.

*ny person "iolang such

protec"e order is subject tothe contempt po$er of the

court and other penales

prescribed by la$.Y

(F! o tape shall be gi"en, loaned, sold

or sho$n to any person e#cept as ordered by

the court.

(I! ithin ;P days from receipt, al

copies of the tape and any transcripts thereof

shall be returned to the cler of court fo

safeeeping unless the period is e#tended by

the court on moon of a party.

(A! 6his protec"e order shall remain in

full force and e:ect unl further order of the

court.

H. *ddional protec"e orders. Z 6he court may

motu proprio or on moon of any party, the

child, his parents, legal guardian, or the

guardian ad litem, issue addional orders to

protect the pri"acy of the child.

=. &ublicaon of identy contemptuous.

hat is prohibitedD &ublicaon or causing

publicaon in any format the name, address

telephone number, school, or other idenfying

informaon of a child $ho is or is alleged to be

a "icm or accused of a crime or a $itness

thereof, or an immediate family of the child

Miability of "iolatorD contempt of court

/. &hysical safety of childJ e#clusion of e"idence.

* child has a right at any court proceeding not

to tesfy regarding personal idenfying

informaon, including his name, address



telephone number, school, and other

informaon that could endanger his physical

safety or his family.

6he court may, ho$e"er, re3uire the child to

tesfy regarding personal idenfying

informaon in the interest of jusce.

X. estrucon of "ideotapes and audiotapes

produced under the pro"isions of this Rule or

other$ise made part of the court record shall

be destroyed a9er F years ha"e elapsed from

the date of entry of judgment.

M. Records of youthful o:enderD pri"ileged

1. ?outhful o:ender has been charged before

any city or pro"incial prosecutor or before

any municipal judge and the charges ha"e

been ordered dropped

*ll the records of the case shall

be considered as pri"ileged and

may not be disclosed directly orindirectly to anyone for any

purpose $hatsoe"er.

2. ?outhful o:ender has been charged and the

court ac3uits him, or dismisses the case or

commits him to an instuon and

subse3uently releases him pursuant to

0hapter ; of &. . o. IP;,

*ll the records of his case shall

also be considered as pri"ileged

and may not be disclosed directly

or indirectly to anyone O0&6 todetermine if a defendant may ha"e

his sentence suspended under

*rcle 1Q2 of &. . o. IP; or if he

may be granted probaon under

the pro"isions of &. . o. QI8 or to

enforce his ci"il liability, if said

liability has been imposed in the

criminal acon.

6he youthful o:ender concerned

shall not be held under any

pro"ision of la$ to be guilty of

perjury or of concealment or

misrepresentaon by reason of his

failure to acno$ledge the case or

recite any fact related thereto in

response to any in3uiry made to

him for any purpose.

VI. uppletory applicaon of Rules of 0ourtD 6he

pro"isions of the Rules of 0ourt on deposion,

condional e#aminaon of $itnesses, and

e"idence shall be applied in a suppletory

character. (`;2!

!ut+encaon and %roof of Docu#ent$

1. 0lasses of ocuments

1.1 P!ic ocments B Rule 1;2, ec. 1Q

1.1.1-* rien o5cial acts of the so"ereign

authority, o5cial bodies and tribunals, and public

o5cers, $hether of the &hilippines or of a foreign

countryJ

- ?o< %roven [ Rule 1;2, ec. 2;

- ocuments consisng of entries in public records

made in the performance of a duty by a public

o5cer are prima facie e"idence of the facts therein

stated. *ll other public documents are e"idence

e"en against a third person of the fact $hich ga"e

rise to their e#ecuon and of the date of the laer.

1.1.1-' Records of the o5cial acts of the so"ereign

authority, o5cial bodies and tribunals, and public

o5cers, $hether of the &hilippines or of a foreign

country.

- ?o< %roven [ Rule 1;2, ec. 2<

- 6he record may be e"idenced byD (1! an o5cia

publicaon thereofJ (2! a copy aested by the

o5cer ha"ing the legal custody of the record, or by

his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not

ept in the &hilippines, $ith a cercate that such

o5cer has the custody.

=f the record is in a foreign country, the cercate

may be made by a secretary of the embassy or

legaon, consul-general, consul, "ice-consul, o

consular agent or by any o5cer in the foreign

ser"ice of the &hilippines staoned in the foreign

country in $hich the record is ept, and

authencated by the seal of his o5ce.

Content$ of !=e$taon [ Rule 1;2, ec 2F

- 6he aestaon must state that the copy is a

correct copy of the original or a specic par

thereof, as the case may be. 6he aestaon must

be under the o5cial seal of the aesng o5cer, if

there be any, or if he be the cler of a court ha"ing a

seal, under the seal of such court.

' Irre#ovability of Record [ Rule 1;2, ec. 2I

- *ny public record, an o5cial copy of $hich is

admissible in e"idence, must not be remo"ed from

the o5ce in $hich it is ept, e#cept upon order of a

court $here the inspecon of the record is essena

to the just determinaon of a pending case.

1.1.2 otarial ocuments e#cept last $ills and

testamentsJ

- ?o< %roven [ Rule 1;2, ec. ;P

- otarial documents may be presented in e"idence



$ithout further proof, the cercate of

acno$ledgment being prima facie e"idence of the

e#ecuon of the instrument or document in"ol"ed.

1.1.; &ublic Records (ept in the &hilippines! of

&ri"ate ocuments re3uired by la$ to be entered

therein

- ?o< %roven [ ec. 2A

- uch may be pro"ed by the original record, or a

copy thereof, aested by the legal custodian of the

record, $ith an appropriate cercate that such

o5cer has the custody.

- %roof of LacQ of Record [ ec. 28

* $rien statement signed by an o5cer ha"ing the

custody of an o5cial record or by his deputy that

a9er diligent search, no record or entry of a

specied tenor is found to e#ist in the records of his

o5ce, accompanied by a cercate that such o5cer

has the custody, is admissible to pro"e that the

records of his o5ce contain no such record or entry.

1.2 Private ocments

- ?o< %roven [ Rule 1;2, ec. 2P

'efore any pri"ate document o:ered as authenc is

recei"ed in e"idence, its due e#ecuon and

authencity must be pro"ed eitherD (1! by anyone

$ho say the document e#ecuted or $rienJ or (2!

by e"idence of the genuineness of the signature or

hand$ring of the maer. *ny other pri"ate

document need only be idened as that $hich it is

claimed to be.

- !ncient Docu#ent Rule [ Rule 1;2, ec. 21

Re3uisitesD (1! 6he pri"ate document is more than

;P years oldJ (2! =t is produced from a custody in

$hich it $ould naturally be found if genuineJ (;! =t is

unblemished by any alteraons or circumstances of

suspicion.

=f all re3uisites ha"e been met, no other e"idence of

its authencity is re3uired.

1. ?o< >enuinene$$ of ?and<rin& i$ %roven [

Rule 1;2, ec. 22

=t may be pro"ed by any $itness $ho belie"es it to

be the hand$ring of such person because he hasseen the person $rite, or has seen $ring

purporng to be his upon $hich the $itness has

acted or been charged, and has thus ac3uired

no$ledge of the hand$ring of such person.

"idence respecng the hand$ring may also be

gi"en by a comparison made by the $itness or the

court, $ith $rings admied or treated as genuine

by the party against $hom the e"idence is o:ered,

or pro"ed to be genuine to the sasfacon of the

judge.

2. I#peac+#ent of Audicial Record B Rule 1;2, ec.

2Q

Ho$ done B 'y e"idence of (a! $ant of jurisdicon

in the court or judicial o5cerJ (b! collusion bet$een

the paresJ or (c! fraud in the party o:ering the

record, in respect to the proceedings.

;. !lteraon$ B Rule 1;2, ec. ;1

- 6he party producing a document as genuine

$hich has been altered and appears to ha"e been

altered a9er its e#ecuon, in a part material to the

3ueson in dispute, must account for the alteraon

Eailure to do so $ould result in the inadmissibility of

e"idence.

- He may sho$ that the alteraon $as made

by another,

$ithout his concurrence, or

made $ith the consent of the pares

a:ected by it, or

$as other$ise properly or innocent made

or

6he alteraon did not change the meaning

or language of the instrument.

Seal – Rule ,203 Sec* 20

- 6here shall be no di:erence bet$een sealed and

unsealed pri"ate documents insofar as their

admissibility as e"idence is concerned.

Docu#ent$ 8ri=en in an Unocial Lan&ua&e B

Rule 1;2, ec.;;

- ot admissible unless accompanied $ith a

translaon into nglish or EilipinoJ pares or their

aorneys are directed to ha"e such translaon

prepared before trial.

IS )?ERE !N; 8!; )O !VOID )?E )EDIOUS

%ROCESS OF !U)?EN)IC!)IONB

1. Rule on aconable documents (Rule 8!. =

pro"ides that if an aconable document is the basis

of a complaint of an ans$er, the la$ re3uires that it

should be anne#ed to the pleading or that the

contents thereof be copied in "erbam. =f there is

failure to specically deny under oath the

genuineness and due e#ecuon of an aconable

document that judicial admission $ill tae the place

of authencaon2. +ode of disco"ery- Re3uest for admission of the

genuineness and due e#ecuon of a pri"ate $ring

Eailure to object $ithin 1F days, deemed admied.

;. &re-trial of ci"il and criminal case $herein pares

may enter into spulaons, $here they $ill admit

the genuineness and due e#ecuon of the pri"ate

$ring.

OGer and Ob@econ

1. OGer of Evidence B Rule 1;2, ec, ;<

1 %hy made\



- Eor e"idence to be considered by the court - court

shall consider no e"idence, $hich has not been

formally o:ered.

1.1 hen to mae o:er B Rule 1;2, ec. ;F

- 6esmonial "idence [ at the me the $itness is

called to tesfy.

- ocumentary "idence [ a9er the presentaon of

a partyNs tesmonial e"idenceJ o:er shall be done

orally unless allo$ed by the court to be done in

$ring.

#'en evidence admi)ed even if not forma!!"

oFered:

1. 6he same must ha"e been duly idened by

tesmony duly recorded

2. 6he same must ha"e been incorporated to the

records of the case (Mata !da. 1e /nate vs. C#5

S)!>ES in t+e pre$entaon of docu#entary

evidence

1. =dencaon- proof that the document being

o:ered is the same one referred to by the $itness in

his tesmony

2. +aring

;. *uthencaon- proof of documentNs due

e#ecuon and genuineness

<. =nspecon

F. Eormal 4:er

I. 4bjecons

2. Ob@econ - Rule 1;2, ec. ;I

- 6esmonial "idence [ must be objected to

immediately a9er the o:er is made.

[ 4bjecon to a 3ueson propounded in the course

of the oral e#aminaon of a $itness shall be made

as soon as the grounds therefore shall become

reasonably apparent.

- ocumentary "idence [ shall be objected to

$ithin ; days a9er noce of the o:er unless a

di:erent period is allo$ed by the court.

ind$ of Ob@econ

1. )eneral or broadside- does not go beyonddeclaring the e"idence as immaterial, incompetent,

irrele"ant, or inadmissible. oes not specify the

grounds

2. pecic- tates the ground

' 8+en repeon i$ unnece$$ary – Rule ,203 Sec*

2/ 7Rule on Connuin& Ob@econ9

=t shall not be necessary to repeat the objecon

$hen it becomes reasonably apparent in the course

of the e#aminaon of a $itness that the 3uesons

being propounded are of the same class as those to

$hich objecon has been made, $hether such

objecon $as sustained or o"erruled. =t shall be

su5cient for the ad"erse party to record his

connuing objecon to such class of 3uesons.

- Rulin& – Rule ,203 Sec* 2.

[ )i"en immediately a9er the objecon is made,

unless the court desires to tae a reasonable me to

inform itself on the 3ueson presentedJ but the

ruling shall al$ays be made during the trial and at

such me as $ill gi"e the party against $hom it is

made an opportunity to meet the situaon

presented by the ruling.

[ 6he reason for sustaining or o"erruling an

objecon need not be stated. Ho$e"er, if the

objecon is based on t$o or more grounds, a ruling

sustaining the objecon on one or some of them

must specify the ground or grounds relied upon.

;. oon to StriQe B Rule 1;2, ec. ;Q

- 6he court may sustain an objecon and order the

ans$er gi"en to be stricen o: the record should a

$itness ans$er the 3ueson before the ad"erse

party had the opportunity to "oice fully its objecon

and such objecon is found to be meritorious.

- 6he court may also, upon proper moon, order the

striing out of ans$ers, $hich are incompetent

irrele"ant or other$ise improper.

<. )ender of E(cluded Evidence B Rule 1;2, ec. <P

- ocumentary e"idence B the o:eror may ha"e the

same aached or made part of the record.

- 6esmonial e"idence B the o:eror may state fo

the record the name and other persona

circumstances of the $itness and the substance o

the proposed tesmony.

There is a dis&nc&on between iden&Hca&onof documentary evidence and its formal o6er as ane)hibit. The former is done in the course of the trialand is accompanied by the mar+ing of the evidencewhile the la*er is done only when the party restshisher case. That a document has been iden&Heddoes not mean that it will be o6ered. 4nterpaciHcTransit vs. #viles, 2;;35

%hile there was no o6er of the tes&mony, pe&&oner waived this defect by failing to objectwhen the ground became reasonably apparent themoment private respondent was called to tes&fywithout any prior o6er having been made. 4Catuiravs. C#, 2;;=5

The rule reDuiring that there must be a formal o6er of evidence before the evidence can beconsidered may be rela)ed provided the evidencemust have duly iden&Hed by tes&mony dulyrecorded and they must have been incorporated inthe records of the case. 4!da. 1e /Bate vs. C#,



2;;<5

OFFER OF %ROOFK)ENDER OF E:CLUDED EVIDENCE

v$* OFFER OF EVIDENCE

irst, is only resorted to if admission is refused by the court for purposes of review on appeal. $econd,refers to tes&monial, documentary or object evidence that are presented or o6ered in court by a

party so that the court can consider his evidencewhen it comes to the prepara&on of the decision.

VIII* 8ei&+t and Suciency of Evidence

A. Reuired uantu# of Evidence

1. %reponderance of Evidence 7Civil Ca$e$9 B Rule

1;;, ec. 1

( 'ow determined\ 6he court may considerD

[ *ll the facts and circumstances of the caseJ

[ 6he $itnessesN manner of tesfyingJ

[ 6heir intelligenceJ

[ 6heir means and opportunity of no$ing the facts

to $hich they tesfyJ

[ 6he probability or improbability of their

tesmonyJ

[ 6heir interest or $ant of interestJ

[ &ersonal credibility so far as the same may

legimately appear upon the trialJ

[ umber of $itnesses (note preponderance that is

not necessarily e3uated $ith the no. of $itnesses!

2. %roof "eyond Rea$onable Doubt 7Cri#inal

Ca$e$9 B Rule 1;;, ec. 2

( %hat is proof beyond reasonable doubt\ [ 6hat degree of proof $hich produces con"icon in

an unprejudiced mind.

[ *bsolute certainty is not re3uired, only moral

certainty.

;. Sub$tanal Evidence 7!d#ini$traveKua$i'

Audicial Ca$e$9 B Rule1;;, ec.

F

( %hat is substan&al evidence\ 6he amount of

rele"ant e"idence $hich a reasonable mind might

accept as ade3uate to support a conclusion.

B.

E(tra@udicial Confe$$ion$ – Rule ,223 Sec* 2- *n e#trajudicial confession made by an accused, is

not a su5cient ground for con"icon 7M

corroborated by e"idence of corpus delic.

C. Circu#$tanal Evidence – Rule ,223 Sec* 6

( ReDuisites for circumstan&al evidence to besuScient for convic&onJa. 6here is more than 1 circumstanceJ

b. 6he facts from $hich the inferences are deri"ed

are pro"enJ and

c. 6he combinaon of all the circumstances is such

as to produce a con"icon beyond reasonable

doubt.

OU)'OF'COUR) IDEN)IFIC!)ION, 6H 646*M=6? 4E

0=R07+6*0 66

1.itnessN opportunity to "ie$ the criminal act at

the me of the crime

2.itnessN degree of aenon at that me

3.6he accuracy of any prior descripon gi"en by

the $itness

4.6he le"el of certainty demonstrated by the

$itness at the idencaon

5.6he length of me bet$een the crime and the

idencaon

6.6he sugges"eness of the idencaon

procedure

re$ ip$a louitur 7)+e t+in& $peaQ$ for it$elf9' *

procedural de"ice $hich presumes that the person

is negligent, $hen he is in control of an

instrumentality causing an injury in the absence of

some e#planaon by him.

Fal$u$ in uno3 fal$u$ in o#nibu$ 7Fal$e in one t+in&

fal$e in everyt+in&9- =f the tesmony of the $itness

on a material issue is $illfully false and gi"en $ith

an intenon to decei"e, court may disregard all the

$itnessN tesmony. (ot a mandatory rule o

e"idence!

- t deals only with the weight of evidenceand not a posi&ve rule of law

- The witnessesG false or e)aggerated

statements on other ma*ers shall not preclude the acceptance of such evidenceas is relieved from any sign of falsehood

- The court may accept and reject por&ons ofthe witnessG tes&mony depending on theinherent credibility thereof.

]+ay the court stop the introducon of furthe

tesmony\ ? upon any parcular point $hen the

e"idence upon it is already so full that more

$itnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably

e#pected to be addionally persuasi"eJ this po$ershould be e#ercised $ith cauon. (Rule 1;;, econ

I!

]Ho$ $ill the court dispose of a moon $hich is

based on facts not appearing of record\ 0ourt may

hear the maer on

- *5da"its or

- eposions

presented by the respec"e pares but the court

may direct that the maer be heard $holly or partly

on oral tesmony or deposions. (Rule 1;;, econ



A!

E)amples of mo&on which need hearing hence the presenta&on of evidenceJCRMN#" C#$E$J

Mo&on for bail 40nder Criminal -rocedure,the evidence ta+en up during the hearing of themo&on will form part automa&cally of the recordsof the case, so there is no need to repeat in the trial what have been covered in the hearing of themo&on5

C!" C#$E$J #pplica&on for preliminary

a*achmentinjunc&onMo&on to dismiss founded on certain facts

which are not solely predicated on absence of jurisdic&on or failure to state a C/#, i.e. it is predicated on the ground of payment (ame $ith 0riminal 0ase, e"idence taen up during

hearing made part automacally of records of the

case!

Rule$ on Electronic Evidence

cope

7nless other$ise pro"ided herein, these Rules shall

apply $hene"er an electronic document or

electronic data message (R1, `1!

0ases co"ered.

*ll ci"il acons and proceedings, as $ell as 3uasi-

judicial and administra"e cases. (R1, 2̀!

lectronic data message

=nformaon generated, sent, recei"ed or stored by

electronic, opcal or similar means. (R2, `1g!

lectronic ignatures (R2, ̀ 1j!

Refers to any disnc"e mar, characterisc andor

sound in electronic form, represenng the identy

of a person and aached to or logically associated

$ith the electronic data message or electronic

document or any methodology or procedure

employed or adopted by a person and e#ecuted or

adopted by such person $ith the intenon of authencang, signing or appro"ing an electronic

data message or electronic document.

=ncludes digital signatures

o Refers to an electronic signature consisng

of a transformaon of an electronic

document or an electronic data message

using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem

such that a person ha"ing the inial

untransformed electronic document and

the signerNs public ey can accurately

determineD

(i! hether the transformaon $as

created using the pri"ate ey tha

corresponds to the signerNs public ey

and,

(ii! hether the inial electronic

document had been altered a9er the

transformaon $as made. (R2, `1e!

o Wigitally signedY refers to an electronic

document or electronic data message

bearing a digital signature "eried by the

public ey listed in a cercate. (R2, `1f!

*dmissible in e"idence as the funconal e3ui"alent

of the signature of a person on a $rien document

(RI, `1!

Ho$ authencated\ (RI, `2!

1. 'y e"idence that a method or process $as

uli@ed to establish a digital signature and

"erify the sameJ

2. 'y any other means pro"ided by la$J or

;. 'y any other means sasfactory to the

judge as establishing the genuineness of

the electronic signature.

isputable presumpons relang to e-signatures

(RI, `;!

1. 6he electronic signature is that of the

person to $hom it correlatesJ

2. 6he electronic signature $as a5#ed by that

person $ith the intenon of authencang

or appro"ing the electronic document to

$hich it is related or to indicate such

personNs consent to the transacon

embodied thereinJ and

3. 6he methods or processes uli@ed to a5#

or "erify the electronic signature operated

$ithout error or fault.

isputable presumpons relang to digita

signaturesD (RI, `<!

1. 6he informaon contained in a cercate is

correctJ2. 6he digital signature $as created during the

operaonal period of a cercateJ

3. o cause e#ists to render a cercate

in"alid or re"ocableJ

4. 6he message associated $ith a digita

signature has not been altered from the

me it $as signedJ and,

5. * cercate had been issued by the

cercaon authority indicated therein.

Electronic docu#ent (R2, `1h!



=nformaon or the representaon of informaon,

data, gures, symbols or other modes of $rien

e#pression, described or ho$e"er represented,

by $hich a right is established or an obligaon

e#nguished, or

by $hich a fact may be pro"ed and a5rmed,

$hich is recei"ed, recorded, transmied,

stored, processed, retrie"ed or produced

electronically.

=ncludes digitally signed documents and any

printout or output, readable by sight or other

means, $hich accurately reKects the electronic data

message or electronic document. Eor purposes of

these Rules, the term Welectronic documentY may

be used interchangeably $ith Welectronic data

messageY.

Funconal euivalent of paper'ba$ed docu#ent$.

(R;, `1!

*dmissible in e"idence if it complies $ith the rules

on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of 0ourt

and related la$s and is authencated in the manner

prescribed by these Rules. (R;, `2!

0ondenal character of a pri"ileged

communicaon is not lost solely on the ground that

it is in the form of an electronic document. (R;, `;!

"ES) EVIDENCE RULE4 (R<!

o *n electronic document shall be regarded

as the e3ui"alent of an original document

under the 'est "idence Rule if it is a

printout or output readable by sight or

other means, sho$n to reKect the data

accurately.

o 4riginals *nd 0opiesD

hen copies or duplicates regarded as

originalsD

1. hen a document is in t$o or

more copies e#ecuted at or about

the same me $ith idencal

contents, or

2. =s a counterpart produced by the

same impression as the original, orfrom the same matri#, or by

mechanical or electronic re-

recording, or by chemical

reproducon, or by other

e3ui"alent techni3ues that

accurately reproduces the original.

hen copies or duplicates shall not be

admissible to the same e#tent as the

originalD

3. =f a genuine 3ueson is raised as to

the authencity of the originalJ or

4. =f in the circumstances it $ould be

unjust or ine3uitable to admit the

copy in lieu of the original.

!ut+encaon of Electronic Docu#ent$ 7R9

1 :urden of proving authen&cityJ person

seeing to introduce an electronic

document in any legal proceeding has the

burden of pro"ing its authencity.

2 Manner of authen&ca&on B 'efore any

pri"ate electronic document o:ered as

authenc is recei"ed in e"idence, its

authencity must be pro"ed by any of the

follo$ing meansD

(a! by e"idence that it had been digitally

signed by the person purported to ha"e

signed the sameJ

(b! by e"idence that other appropriate

security procedures or de"ices as may

be authori@ed by the upreme 0ourt or

by la$ for authencaon of electronic

documents $ere applied to the

documentJ or

(c! by other e"idence sho$ing its integrity

and reliability to the sasfacon of the

judge.

3 * document electronically notari@ed in

accordance $ith the rules promulgated by

the upreme 0ourt shall be considered as a

public document and pro"ed as a notaria

document under the Rules of 0ourt.

] Evidenary 8ei&+t Of Electronic Docu#ent$

(RA!

_ actors for assessing eviden&ary weight .(a! 6he reliability of the manner or method i

$hich it $as generated, stored o

communicated, including but not limited to

input and output procedures, controls, test

and checs for accuracy and reliability o

the electronic data message or document

in the light of all the circumstances as $el

as any rele"ant agreementJ

(b! 6he reliability of the manner in $hich its

originator $as idenedJ

(c! 6he integrity of the informaon andcommunicaon system in $hich it i

recorded or stored, including but not

limited to the hard$are and compute

programs or so9$are used as $ell a

programming errorsJ

(d! 6he familiarity of the $itness or the person

$ho made the entry $ith the

communicaon and informaon systemJ

(e! 6he nature and 3uality of the informaon

$hich $ent into the communicaon and

informaon system upon $hich the



electronic data message or electronic

document $as basedJ or

(f! 4ther factors $hich the court may consider

as a:ecng the accuracy or integrity of the

electronic document or electronic data

message.

_ ntegrity of an informa&on and communica&onsystem. B =n any dispute in"ol"ing the integrity of

the informaon and communicaon system in

$hich an electronic document or electronic data

message is recorded or stored, the court may

consider, among others, the follo$ing factorsD

(a! hether the informaon and

communicaon system or other similar

de"ice $as operated in a manner that did

not a:ect the integrity of the electronic

document, and there are no other

reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity

of the informaon and communicaon

systemJ

(b! hether the electronic document $as

recorded or stored by a party to the

proceedings $ith interest ad"erse to that of

the party using itJ or

(c!hether the electronic document $as

recorded or stored in the usual and

ordinary course of business by a person

$ho is not a party to the proceedings and

$ho did not act under the control of the

party using it.

?ear$ay rule e(ceponD * memorandum, report,

record or data compilaon of acts, e"ents,

condions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by

electronic, opcal or other similar means at or near

the me of or from transmission or supply of

informaon by a person $ith no$ledge thereof,

and ept in the regular course or conduct of a

business ac"ity, and such $as the regular pracce

to mae the memorandum, report, record, or data

compilaon by electronic, opcal or similar means,

all of $hich are sho$n by the tesmony of the

custodian or other 3ualied $itnesses. (R8, `1!

6his presumpon may be o"ercome by

e"idence of the untrust$orthiness of the sourceof informaon or the method or circumstances

of the preparaon, transmission or storage

thereof. (R8, `2!

?o< are #a=er$ relan& to t+e ad#i$$ibility and

evidenary <ei&+t of an electronic docu#ent

e$tabli$+edB 7R-9

o by an a5da"it stang facts of direct

personal no$ledge of the a5ant or based

on authenc records.

6he a5da"it must a5rma"ely sho$

the competence of the a5ant to tesfy

on the maers contained therein.

6he a5ant shall be made to a5rm the

contents of the a5da"it in open court

and may be cross-e#amined as a maer

of right by the ad"erse party.

E(a#inaon Of 8itne$$e$ 7R,59

Electronic tes&mony 1 *9er summarily hearing the pare

pursuant to Rule Q of these Rules, the

court may authori@e the presentaon

of tesmonial e"idence by electronic

means. 'efore so authori@ing, the

court shall determine the necessity for

such presentaon and prescribe terms

and condions as may be necessary

under the circumstances, including the

protecon of the rights of the pares

and $itnesses concerned.

2 hen e#aminaon of a $itness is done

electronically, the enre proceedings

including the 3uesons and ans$ers

shall be transcribed by a stenographer

steno typist or other recorde

authori@ed for the purpose, $ho shal

cerfy as correct the transcript done by

him. 6he transcript should reKect the

fact that the proceedings, either in

$hole or in part, had been

electronically recorded.

3 6he electronic e"idence and recording

thereof as $ell as the stenographic

notes shall form part of the record of

the case. uch transcript and recording

shall be deemed prima facie e"idence

of such proceedings.

Ep+e#eral electronic co##unicaon

1 Refers to telephone con"ersaons, te#

messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio

streaming "ideo, and other electronic forms o

communicaon the e"idence of $hich is no

recorded or retained. (R2, ̀ 1!

2 hall be pro"en by the tesmony of a person$ho $as a party to the same or has persona

no$ledge thereof. =n the absence o

una"ailability of such $itnesses, othe

competent e"idence may be admied. (R11, `2

!udio3 p+oto&rap+ic and video evidence 7R,,3 TT,'

09

*udio, photographic and "ideo e"idence of e"ents

acts or transacons shall be admissible pro"ided it

shall be sho$n, presented or displayed to the court

and shall be idened, e#plained or authencated



by the person $ho made the recording or by some

other person competent to tesfy on the accuracy

thereof.

o ame rule co"ers a recording of the

telephone con"ersaon or ephemeral

electronic communicaon shall be co"ered

by the immediately preceding secon.

=f ephemeral, audio, photographic and "ideo

e"idence are recorded or embodied in an electronic

document, then the pro"isions authencaon

electronic documents apply. (R11, `2!

RULE ON DN! EVIDENCE

(a! "iolo&ical $a#ple means any organic material

originang from a personSs body, e"en if found in

inanimate objects, that is suscepble to *

tesng. 6his includes blood, sali"a and other body

Kuids, ssues, hairs and bonesJ

(b! DN!W means deo#yribonucleic acid, $hich is

the chain of molecules found in e"ery nucleated cell

of the body. 6he totality of an indi"idualSs * is

uni3ue for the indi"idual, e#cept idencal t$insJ

(c! WDN! evidenceW constutes the totality of the

* proles, results and other genec informaon

directly generated from * tesng of biological

samplesJ

(d! WDN! proJleW means genec informaon

deri"ed from * tesng of a biological sample

obtained from a person, $hich biological sample is

clearly idenable as originang from that personJ

(e! WDN! te$n&W means "eried and credible

scienc methods $hich include the e#tracon of

* from biological samples, the generaon of *

proles and the comparison of the informaon

obtained from the * tesng of biological samples

for the purpose of determining, $ith reasonable

certainty, $hether or not the * obtained from

t$o or more disnct biological samples originatesfrom the same person (direct idencaon! or if the

biological samples originate from related persons

(inship analysis!J and

(f! W%robability of %arenta&eW means the numerical

esmate for the lielihood of parentage of a

puta"e parent compared $ith the probability of a

random match of t$o unrelated indi"iduals in a

gi"en populaon.

!pplicaon for DN! )e$n& Order* 6he appropriate

court may, at any me, either motu proprio or on

applicaon of any person $ho has a legal interest in

the maer in ligaon, order a * tesng. uch

order shall issue a9er due hearing and noce to the

pares upon a sho$ing of the follo$ingD

(a! * biological sample e#ists that is rele"ant to the

caseJ

(b! 6he biological sampleD

(i! $as not pre"iously subjected to the type

of * tesng no$ re3uestedJ or

(ii! $as pre"iously subjected to * tesng

but the results may re3uire conrmaon for good

reasonsJ

(c! 6he * tesng uses a sciencally "alid

techni3ueJ

(d! 6he * tesng has the scienc potenal to

produce ne$ informaon that is rele"ant to the

proper resoluon of the caseJ and chan robles

"irtual la$ library

(e! 6he e#istence of other factors, if any, $hich the

court may consider as potenally a:ecng the

accuracy or integrity of the * tesng.

6his Rule shall not preclude a * tesng, $ithout

need of a prior court order, at the behest of any

party, including la$ enforcement agencies, before a

suit or proceeding is commenced.

*n order granng the * tesng shall be

i##ediately e(ecutory and shall not be

appealable.

&eon for cerorari shall not stay the

implementaon of order unless a higher cour

issues an injunc"e order.

)rant of a * tesng applicaon 46 an

automac admission of * e"idence.

&ost-con"icon * tesng may be a"ailable

$ithout need of prior court order, to the

prosecuon or any person con"icted by nal and

e#ecutory judgment pro"ided that

(a! a biological sample e#ists,

(b! such sample is rele"ant to the case, and(c! the tesng $ould probably result in the re"ersa

or modicaon of the judgment of con"icon.

Factor$ in !$$e$$#ent of probave value of DN!

evidence*

(a! 6he chain of custody, including ho$ the

biological samples $ere collected, ho$ they $ere

handled, and the possibility of contaminaon of the

samplesJ

(b! 6he * tesng methodology, including the

procedure follo$ed in analy@ing the samples, the



ad"antages and disad"antages of the procedure,

and compliance $ith the sciencally "alid

standards in conducng the testsJ

(c! 6he forensic * laboratory, including

accreditaon by any reputable standards-seLng

instuon and the 3ualicaon of the analyst $ho

conducted the tests. =f the laboratory is not

accredited, the rele"ant e#perience of the

laboratory in forensic case$or and credibility shall

be properly establishedJ and

(d! 6he reliability of the tesng result

F!C)ORS in evaluan& t+e Reliability of DN!

)e$n& et+odolo&y*

(a! 6he falsiability of the principles or methods

used, that is, $hether the theory or techni3ue can

be and has been testedJ

(b! 6he subjecon to peer re"ie$ and publicaon of

the principles or methodsJ

(c! 6he general acceptance of the principles or

methods by the rele"ant scienc communityJ

(d! 6he e#istence and maintenance of standards

and controls to ensure the correctness of data

generatedJ

(e! 6he e#istence of an appropriate reference

populaon databaseJ and

(f! 6he general degree of condence aributed to

mathemacal calculaons used in comparing *

proles and the signicance and limitaon of

stascal calculaons used in comparing *

proles.

F!C)ORS in Evaluaon of DN! )e$n& Re$ult$*

(a! 6he e"aluaon of the $eight of matching *

e"idence or the rele"ance of mismatching *

e"idenceJ

(b! 6he results of the * tesng in the light of the

totality of the other e"idence presented in the caseJ

and

(c! * results that e#clude the puta"e parent

from paternity shall be conclusi"e proof of non-

paternity. =f the "alue of the &robability of &aternity

is less than QQ.Q, the results of the * tesngshall be considered as corrobora"e e"idence. =f the

"alue of the &robability of &aternity is QQ.Q or

higher, there shall be a disputable presumpon of

paternity.

the con"ict, unless connued detenon is jused

for a la$ful cause.

* similar peon may be led either in the 0ourt of

*ppeals or the upreme 0ourt, or $ith any member

of said courts, $hich may conduct a hearing

thereon or remand the peon to the court o

origin and issue the appropriate orders.

RELEASE ,; NA res!ts.

6hrough order of the court.

hall only be released to any of the follo$ing, under

such terms and condions as may be set forth by

the courtD

(a! &erson from $hom the sample $as taenJ

(b! Ma$yers represenng pares in the case o

acon $here the * e"idence is o:ered and

presented or sought to be o:ered and presentedJ

(c! Ma$yers of pri"ate complainants in a crimina

aconJ

(d! uly authori@ed la$ enforcement agenciesJ and

(e! 4ther persons as determined by the court.

Indirect Conte#pt- to those $ho publishes o

disclose the * results $ithout proper court order

%re$ervaon of DN! Evidence* 6he trial court shal

preser"e the * e"idence in its totality, including

all biological samples, * proles and results or

other genec informaon obtained from *

tesng. Eor this purpose, the court may order the

appropriate go"ernment agency to preser"e the

* e"idence as follo$sD

(a! =n criminal casesD

i. for not less than the period of me that any

person is under trial for an o:enseJ or

ii. in case the accused is ser"ing sentence, un

such me as the accused has ser"ed his sentence

and

(b! =n all other cases, unl such me as the

decision in the case $here the * e"idence $asintroduced has become nal and e#ecutory. chan

robles "irtual la$ library

%+y$ical de$trucon of a biolo&ical $a#ple before

t+e e(piraon of t+e period$ $et fort+ above

evidence version binding

Documents